Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
wc98 said:
NoNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
one quick win solution would be to use the type of person that uses the term "climate denier troll" (it obviously marks them out as congenital idiots due to the fact not one person on the entire planet "denies the climate) as a green energy source. my method would involve liquidising , then formed into dried pellets for biomass plants Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
At the boundary point things might get a little interesting in discussions - maybe at the boundary either position is equally viable?
Esceptico]oNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
Awesome.Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
You don't think some of the migrants might head for NZ? Like you did.
Clearly you can never come back - think of the emissions that would produce.
The challenge that the world faces in the future is more likely to be one of lack of viable and reliable energy at a cost effective price than it is of climate. The affordable energy problem is likely coming sooner than any climate effects.
The chances of politicians and their servants getting together and running the world, let alone doing it effectively, is unrealistic. The masses would now wait in ever increasing energy poverty while such a situation evolved.
Mass conflict, local or global, would change the balance of economics (in so far as there would be anything familiar to the modern population if the potential for chaos was achieved) and lack of energy and the products it provides that keep the world ticking along hand to mouth in terms of food supplies and the materials that are required to produce food at present volumes.
As noted above - organic methods would not be expected to provide enough food to service the needs of the world's population, even without the social disruption that would occur well before the non-organic (i.e. energy intensive chemical needs and machine dependency) practises could be converted in any sort of controlled way.
Once you have lost control of energy and food the rest becomes a little irrelevant. Population will sort itself out through malnutrition, disease and conflict. The supposed problem will be solved but in a way that is entirely in conflict with the current "think of the children" and "save the world" intended outcome. And well before any claimed climate effects might start causing a few hiccups as claimed.
So, where are you to find the politicians and bureaucrats to manage that transition?
Suggest some existing names - we need them now it seems.
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
jshell said:
robinessex said:
Esceptico said:
jshell said:
Hold up, point of order! Regardless of what side you're on, get this correct: The IPCC is not there to take a balanced view of climate science. Their starting point is of utter belief, so they will have not taken any conflicting views into account. That is their major failing as there are exerts on every side that should be listened to.
What evidence do you have of that claim? The IPCC doesn’t do its own research. If 95% of climate scientists showed that AGW wasn’t happening the IPCC couldn’t issue a report saying it was. Of course 95% of climate scientists say the opposite. After Einstein came up with Special Relativity there were scientists (an ever decreasing minority as time went by) that didn’t want to believe it and tried to prove him wrong. There are still cranks out there today claiming he is wrong. Out of “fairness” should we be giving them a platform and an equal hearing?
Jinx said:
kerplunk said:
The precautionary principle is being abused, but we still don't know whether climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2 is high or low - ok.
I said there is no concensus on the ECS - not the same. But given historical evidence then it cannot be particularly high now can it?
Esceptico said:
NoNeed said:
As this is the politics thread rather than the science one can I ask you a question
Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
Thank you.Have you seen a workable solution that would actually work in the real world that normal people can go along with without their lives being changed beyond all recognition? Maybe news of technology that hasn't reached us yet[/
I don’t see a solution without fundamentally changing how we live. Economies rely on economic growth. Growth relies on increased productivity. Increased productivity generally relies on replacing humans with machines. Machines run on energy (don’t forget that machines include computers - storage, manipulation and transmission of data now account for a significant and growing percentage of energy use). Growing economies and growing populations mean growing energy use. Renewables can’t fill that hole. That is why although globally much more energy is coming from renewable sources it is not enough to meet demand, which is being filled by fossil fuels (in developing countries often coal).
To really address global warming you would probably need an effort equivalent to what happened during WW2. The government would have to take over (in every country). Consumption would have to be limited. Capitalism would need to be stopped.
Is the above remotely possible from a political perspective? No.
By the way, I think the underlying cause of climate change denial is that those opposing climate change can’t stomach the solution and so for them it is easier to deny there is a problem. It can’t be coincidental that climate change deniers are generally right wing and vehemently against governments and any limitation on personal freedoms (by which the usually mean freedom TO oppress whereas those on the left more often interpret freedom as freedom FROM oppression).
Personally I don’t think action will be taken on global warming (if at all) until it is too late.
I am concerned about the future. Global warming will likely make many parts of the Middle East and Africa increasing unliveable. The risk of huge migration flows north (ie to Europe) is very high in my view. That would have severe consequences for the social, political and economic status of Europe.
I’ve already undertaken my own personal planning for my family by moving to NZ. Once we have a permanent right to remain and/or citizenship we may come back but at least we will have a bolt hole if we need it in the future. (That wasn’t the only reason we moved to NZ - I’ve always wanted to try it and I was drawn by the more laid back and active lifestyle - but it was one consideration).
I'm not a denier but as you could probably tell by my question, I don't think we can do anything about it especially as the biggest problem nations don't seem to care like China, so I don't want my life ruined for no good reason.
Esceptico said:
The IPCC reports draw from a large pool of peer reviewed papers. They are put together by experts. The reports are subject to intensive review. They are endorsed by all the major scientific organisations and most governments. Should I tend to accept what they say or some random papers quoted by a climate change denier? Not a hard choice.
The number of climatologists that accept AGW increases every year. I think it is now over 95%. You are on the losing side - scientifically. Unfortunately for the rest of us and the planet the scientists are being ignored and nothing is being done. In fact we are going backwards as Trump is either a denier or doesn’t care.
There were a whole bunch of e-mails that were leaked not that long ago from many of the key players that suggest you're wrong and that the information the IPCC use to form their assessments are heavily weighted in the "right" direction, while any information to question those theories was completely ignored.The number of climatologists that accept AGW increases every year. I think it is now over 95%. You are on the losing side - scientifically. Unfortunately for the rest of us and the planet the scientists are being ignored and nothing is being done. In fact we are going backwards as Trump is either a denier or doesn’t care.
Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
Jinx said:
So many things have been pointed out wrong with Anthropogenic sourced CO2 forced Catastrophic Climate Change (tm) - that it is amazing anyone believes it (even the precautionary principle has been abused to support the nonsense). What is even more amazing is that in the IPCC AR5 if you read the impacts and the "likelihoods" you scratch your head as to how come anyone believes the climate hysteria that is currently in vogue.
There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
The point re the 1.5/2 degrees warming is more about avoiding temperature increases beyond those levels and the risk of triggering positive feedback mechanisms - eg methane releases from thawing permafrost etc rather than the impacts that may have arise from the 1.5 degrees warming, which may indeed be positive. The heat sink effects of the ocean also mean that even if we stop further emissions and keep CO2 levels as they are now, warming will continue.There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
FWIW this cropped up in my YT feed the other day - dispels a lot of the pet theories put forward here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
AshVX220 said:
There were a whole bunch of e-mails that were leaked not that long ago from many of the key players that suggest you're wrong and that the information the IPCC use to form their assessments are heavily weighted in the "right" direction, while any information to question those theories was completely ignored.
Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
The whole climate email thing has been subject to several reviews that found the science and it's findings were sound. One of the key issues about scientists not releasing data is more about whether or not they had the right to do so - in getting access to temperature records from around the world the scientists would have had to agree whether or not they could then publish the raw data themselves and make it freely available. In many instances the agreements made to enable the use of the data prevented them from doing so rather than being about trying to hide. Thankfully the situation has changed and these days most data are freely available.Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
If I remember correctly the IPCC point is also a mis-quote/mis-representation. Basically what he was saying was along the lines of 'if we're going to manage climate change, there will be a change in the value of natural resources (coal, gas etc) and this will result in a re-distribution of wealth' and not 'if we're going to fight climate change we need to re-distribute wealth from rich to poor countries'.
Lotus 50 said:
AshVX220 said:
There were a whole bunch of e-mails that were leaked not that long ago from many of the key players that suggest you're wrong and that the information the IPCC use to form their assessments are heavily weighted in the "right" direction, while any information to question those theories was completely ignored.
Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
The whole climate email thing has been subject to several reviews that found the science and it's findings were sound. One of the key issues about scientists not releasing data is more about whether or not they had the right to do so - in getting access to temperature records from around the world the scientists would have had to agree whether or not they could then publish the raw data themselves and make it freely available. In many instances the agreements made to enable the use of the data prevented them from doing so rather than being about trying to hide. Thankfully the situation has changed and these days most data are freely available.Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
If I remember correctly the IPCC point is also a mis-quote/mis-representation. Basically what he was saying was along the lines of 'if we're going to manage climate change, there will be a change in the value of natural resources (coal, gas etc) and this will result in a re-distribution of wealth' and not 'if we're going to fight climate change we need to re-distribute wealth from rich to poor countries'.
Lotus 50 said:
Jinx said:
So many things have been pointed out wrong with Anthropogenic sourced CO2 forced Catastrophic Climate Change (tm) - that it is amazing anyone believes it (even the precautionary principle has been abused to support the nonsense). What is even more amazing is that in the IPCC AR5 if you read the impacts and the "likelihoods" you scratch your head as to how come anyone believes the climate hysteria that is currently in vogue.
There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
The point re the 1.5/2 degrees warming is more about avoiding temperature increases beyond those levels and the risk of triggering positive feedback mechanisms - eg methane releases from thawing permafrost etc rather than the impacts that may have arise from the 1.5 degrees warming, which may indeed be positive. The heat sink effects of the ocean also mean that even if we stop further emissions and keep CO2 levels as they are now, warming will continue.There was no evidence that 2 degrees increase in an artificial number was anything but a net benefit to mankind so how come we are supposed to be panicing over a revised (by whom?) 1.5 degree increase in a artificial number? They can't even get a consensus on ECS after 30 years of trying so explain how this equates to E=MC^2?
Where is there credible empirical evidence of methane causing a temperature rise? It's the same as carbon dioxide in ice cores (e.g. Monnin et al) the temperature changes come first so no causation,
Model feedbacks give the wrong sign. Where is there credible empirical evidence of positive feedback? On what basis does it 'hold off' until an unspecified future point is reached? Why hasn't it been operating for the past 50 years resulting in us frying in our own juices already?
McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman (2010) took on the Santer reply to Douglass et al by including newer data and employing more sophisticated statistics. Ultimately they showed that climate models, which all predicted more warming in the low to mid troposphere than observed (4 times more) generated gigo outside the error bars of balloons and satellite data.
MMH produced an update in 2011. This provided an even stronger rebuttal of agw in terms of dangerous warming (not) from non-existent positive feedback. The observational trend sat significantly below the average model trend. Santer as cited above had earlier claimed to show that the error bars overlapped, thereby allowing dangerous agw to cling to life. Post-MMH(II) once again the corpse of agw was wandering about, animated only by climate politics.
Not only are climate model predictions exaggerated x4 as indicated above. feedback assumptions have the wrong sign. Naturally for the scare to persist it must be assumed positive, rather than negative as observed using ERBE satellite data. Click to enlarge the image below which has ERBE satellite data top left and erroneous model predictions eveywhere else (gradients have the wrong sign).
Allied to the more recent paper from McKitrick and Christy, credible empirical data shows that the core assumptions of IPCC climate models, in terms of both carbon dioxide effects and feedback, are not supported i.e. wrong. Not only is tax gas on extended holiday, feedback isn't helping with scary fairytales.
It's inevitable and expected that the verbals won't die. There's so much armwaving with this 'could' nonsense, the resulting breeze 'could' feed a turbine or two.
AshVX220 said:
Lotus 50 said:
AshVX220 said:
There were a whole bunch of e-mails that were leaked not that long ago from many of the key players that suggest you're wrong and that the information the IPCC use to form their assessments are heavily weighted in the "right" direction, while any information to question those theories was completely ignored.
Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
The whole climate email thing has been subject to several reviews that found the science and it's findings were sound. One of the key issues about scientists not releasing data is more about whether or not they had the right to do so - in getting access to temperature records from around the world the scientists would have had to agree whether or not they could then publish the raw data themselves and make it freely available. In many instances the agreements made to enable the use of the data prevented them from doing so rather than being about trying to hide. Thankfully the situation has changed and these days most data are freely available.Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
If I remember correctly the IPCC point is also a mis-quote/mis-representation. Basically what he was saying was along the lines of 'if we're going to manage climate change, there will be a change in the value of natural resources (coal, gas etc) and this will result in a re-distribution of wealth' and not 'if we're going to fight climate change we need to re-distribute wealth from rich to poor countries'.
Randy Winkman said:
AshVX220 said:
Lotus 50 said:
AshVX220 said:
There were a whole bunch of e-mails that were leaked not that long ago from many of the key players that suggest you're wrong and that the information the IPCC use to form their assessments are heavily weighted in the "right" direction, while any information to question those theories was completely ignored.
Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
The whole climate email thing has been subject to several reviews that found the science and it's findings were sound. One of the key issues about scientists not releasing data is more about whether or not they had the right to do so - in getting access to temperature records from around the world the scientists would have had to agree whether or not they could then publish the raw data themselves and make it freely available. In many instances the agreements made to enable the use of the data prevented them from doing so rather than being about trying to hide. Thankfully the situation has changed and these days most data are freely available.Scientists not releasing data to the wider world in case other scientists questioned their data and gave a different conclusion being just one of those e-mails.
Plus, someone high in the IPCC at one point stating that the war on Climate change has little to do with the climate and everything to do with global wealth re-distribution.
If I remember correctly the IPCC point is also a mis-quote/mis-representation. Basically what he was saying was along the lines of 'if we're going to manage climate change, there will be a change in the value of natural resources (coal, gas etc) and this will result in a re-distribution of wealth' and not 'if we're going to fight climate change we need to re-distribute wealth from rich to poor countries'.
Randy Winkman said:
I guess it's where the Donald got his idea for the Hilary emails thing. Once people have started talking about it and want to believe in it, it never stops.
Just to put my side of the Climate Gate Emails.I first heard of it on RT (Russia Today news channel) one morning.
Then I went looking for the zip file - found it and proceeded to spend what free time I had reading through them all.
There was much noise, but some substantial names kept cropping up.
More to the point I didn't think any of the emails were manufactured to make a point other than the key players were skewing the game.
The 'Harry read me' - if genuine I know not, certainly nailed the coffin shut on any MMGW CO2 influence as far as I and any computer 'garbage in gospel out' models are concerned.
However - unlike any Trump/Hilliary emails - the exact opposite happened. It wasn't really talked about, and the investigations did stop - it was put to bed under a greenwash. No MSM would touch the story.
Now tell me who's got something to hide? (a decline perhaps?).
Edited by JustALooseScrew on Wednesday 23 October 18:22
LongQ said:
Awesome.
You don't think some of the migrants might head for NZ? Like you did.
Clearly you can never come back - think of the emissions that would produce.
The challenge that the world faces in the future is more likely to be one of lack of viable and reliable energy at a cost effective price than it is of climate. The affordable energy problem is likely coming sooner than any climate effects.
The chances of politicians and their servants getting together and running the world, let alone doing it effectively, is unrealistic. The masses would now wait in ever increasing energy poverty while such a situation evolved.
Mass conflict, local or global, would change the balance of economics (in so far as there would be anything familiar to the modern population if the potential for chaos was achieved) and lack of energy and the products it provides that keep the world ticking along hand to mouth in terms of food supplies and the materials that are required to produce food at present volumes.
As noted above - organic methods would not be expected to provide enough food to service the needs of the world's population, even without the social disruption that would occur well before the non-organic (i.e. energy intensive chemical needs and machine dependency) practises could be converted in any sort of controlled way.
Once you have lost control of energy and food the rest becomes a little irrelevant. Population will sort itself out through malnutrition, disease and conflict. The supposed problem will be solved but in a way that is entirely in conflict with the current "think of the children" and "save the world" intended outcome. And well before any claimed climate effects might start causing a few hiccups as claimed.
So, where are you to find the politicians and bureaucrats to manage that transition?
Suggest some existing names - we need them now it seems.
Your grip of geography seems as tenuous as your grip of climate change. Yes migrants might want to come to NZ but how are they going to get here? There is about 10 miles of water between Africa and Europe. It takes about three hours to fly to the next major country (Australia) from NZ. Even then NZ has a lot of space. Same size as the UK but a population of only five and a half million.You don't think some of the migrants might head for NZ? Like you did.
Clearly you can never come back - think of the emissions that would produce.
The challenge that the world faces in the future is more likely to be one of lack of viable and reliable energy at a cost effective price than it is of climate. The affordable energy problem is likely coming sooner than any climate effects.
The chances of politicians and their servants getting together and running the world, let alone doing it effectively, is unrealistic. The masses would now wait in ever increasing energy poverty while such a situation evolved.
Mass conflict, local or global, would change the balance of economics (in so far as there would be anything familiar to the modern population if the potential for chaos was achieved) and lack of energy and the products it provides that keep the world ticking along hand to mouth in terms of food supplies and the materials that are required to produce food at present volumes.
As noted above - organic methods would not be expected to provide enough food to service the needs of the world's population, even without the social disruption that would occur well before the non-organic (i.e. energy intensive chemical needs and machine dependency) practises could be converted in any sort of controlled way.
Once you have lost control of energy and food the rest becomes a little irrelevant. Population will sort itself out through malnutrition, disease and conflict. The supposed problem will be solved but in a way that is entirely in conflict with the current "think of the children" and "save the world" intended outcome. And well before any claimed climate effects might start causing a few hiccups as claimed.
So, where are you to find the politicians and bureaucrats to manage that transition?
Suggest some existing names - we need them now it seems.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff