Forums > Social Discussion > Ban The Oil Trade
Login/Join to Participateenthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
The response to global warming has been pathetic. I think its mainly because people tend to learn best from anecdotal evidence and experience. A problem that we have never before experienced, understandable only through facts and figures poses a massive communication problem. People only really respond when they get emotional about an issue, how do you engage with people on an emotional level about an issue the effects of which are currently barely discernable?
My frustration boiled over and I did something quite out of character. I started a website, www.bantheoiltrade.com, to agitate for oil to be banned. All this talk of emission reduction makes people think they can switch their lightbulbs over and breathe a sigh of relief. It's not like that. We need to change the foundation of our economy, we need to stop burning oil one day and the sooner the better. We need to ban the oil trade.
I rented a billboard (12 Westminster Bridge Road, London till May 18th) and put "Global Warming is Intergenerational Genocide" on it in big black letters. It cost me £575.
I feel a bit ambivalent about all this. I'm acutely embarassed to be so far out of the mainstream but I read the scientific evidence extensively and it's very alarming.
The response to global warming has been pathetic. I think its mainly because people tend to learn best from anecdotal evidence and experience. A problem that we have never before experienced, understandable only through facts and figures poses a massive communication problem. People only really respond when they get emotional about an issue, how do you engage with people on an emotional level about an issue the effects of which are currently barely discernable?
My frustration boiled over and I did something quite out of character. I started a website, www.bantheoiltrade.com, to agitate for oil to be banned. All this talk of emission reduction makes people think they can switch their lightbulbs over and breathe a sigh of relief. It's not like that. We need to change the foundation of our economy, we need to stop burning oil one day and the sooner the better. We need to ban the oil trade.
I rented a billboard (12 Westminster Bridge Road, London till May 18th) and put "Global Warming is Intergenerational Genocide" on it in big black letters. It cost me £575.
I feel a bit ambivalent about all this. I'm acutely embarassed to be so far out of the mainstream but I read the scientific evidence extensively and it's very alarming.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
SILVER Member
water based
5,125 posts
Location: melbourne, Australia
water based
5,125 posts
Location: melbourne, Australia
Posted:
hey mynci.. whilst im also dubious about the whole 'why' bit.. i had a lecture on it a few weeks back..
the lecture focused mainly on proving to the kids that it is a real thing, not a bunch of crackpot theories.. but there were a couple of points of what the main effects would be.
temperature and extreme weather events seemed to be a large part of the reasoning.. i guess we cant be here if its too hot, nor could we grow crops to eat.. extreme weather can be interpreted as you will.. that was it..
the lecturer (asoc. professor sandra kentish) is an expert on the topic, gave a lecture on why it exists, what we can do to reduce emissions, and what theyre doing to try and reverse the c02 in the atmosphere.. but as you stated, no real 'why'..
i just downloaded a copy of the notes, re-read them, followed all the 'useful websites' links.. and still no 'why'..
but, then, i may just be looking at it through cynical eyes.
hey mynci.. whilst im also dubious about the whole 'why' bit.. i had a lecture on it a few weeks back..
the lecture focused mainly on proving to the kids that it is a real thing, not a bunch of crackpot theories.. but there were a couple of points of what the main effects would be.
temperature and extreme weather events seemed to be a large part of the reasoning.. i guess we cant be here if its too hot, nor could we grow crops to eat.. extreme weather can be interpreted as you will.. that was it..
the lecturer (asoc. professor sandra kentish) is an expert on the topic, gave a lecture on why it exists, what we can do to reduce emissions, and what theyre doing to try and reverse the c02 in the atmosphere.. but as you stated, no real 'why'..
i just downloaded a copy of the notes, re-read them, followed all the 'useful websites' links.. and still no 'why'..
but, then, i may just be looking at it through cynical eyes.
"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"
*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Originally Posted By: Spanner[quote=Mynciyes species may become extinct, but they've been doing that for years and seem to be doing OK for all of that. In fact Biodiversity flourishes after catastrophic events due to the extra space
Possibly, if communities of species can survive in alternative habitats well enough for new ecosystems to be established, but there are far more abiotic factors which have bearing on this than just space.
[/quote]
Indeed but anything Human related is NOT abiotic and those factors your speaking of are mainly related to species migration acros large distances like continents, in fact any byproduct of an organism by it's very definition is Biotic even the CO2 we release is also released by biological factors albeit in lesser amounts, abiotic factors would include, temperature and topography, and whilst temperature would change most mammals have the ability to adapt to different temperatures because they are warm blooded, lizards would retreat polewards, to assume that the natural world would NOT flourish without humans is extremely conceited. Yes some organisms would suffer, Rat, cockroach and seagull populations would initially crash without our waste to scavenge as would populations of other domesticated livestock like cows. But your point is backwards - communities of species wouldn't need to survive in alternative habitats to bring about new ecosystems. That's the creationist view on natural selection that species are designed for a purpose / habitat. The species that are available would adapt to fit in whatever niches were empty/available and filling those niches would create another burst of biodiversity providing we do not leave a nuclear wasteland behind, the very point I made initially. global warming being a better way to kill off humans than war if you take into account what is to come after us. Alternatlively if biodiversity doesn't increase, what you would get is an increase in current populations, although you would expect greater migration once humans stop using roads, so animals in preindustrial or unaccustomed haibitats are very likely
Watch "when Humans are gone" it's a little weak in it doesn't explain where humans went or what killed them off but it extrapolates how animals would flourish and how man made artifacts would disappear or create further niches for animals (pigeons using buildings already perfectly adapted) it shows how quickly evidence of humans can be wiped from the planet, with structures not being maintained, and how there could be power in places for as much as 2-10 years because if things like the hoover dam power plant and other renewable power stations.
If global warming kills us off, the ecosystems will recover (Nuclear winter notwithstanding), if they can recover from meteor strikes, blankets of ice that reach the equator. Essentially we would eventuall return to a time when the antarctic was lush forests if global warming continued, there would be a whole continent for new life to emerge, if it could compete with penguins. The re-emergence of seals to the land would be a possible example.
Originally Posted By: Spanner[quote=Mynciyes species may become extinct, but they've been doing that for years and seem to be doing OK for all of that. In fact Biodiversity flourishes after catastrophic events due to the extra space
Possibly, if communities of species can survive in alternative habitats well enough for new ecosystems to be established, but there are far more abiotic factors which have bearing on this than just space.
[/quote]
Indeed but anything Human related is NOT abiotic and those factors your speaking of are mainly related to species migration acros large distances like continents, in fact any byproduct of an organism by it's very definition is Biotic even the CO2 we release is also released by biological factors albeit in lesser amounts, abiotic factors would include, temperature and topography, and whilst temperature would change most mammals have the ability to adapt to different temperatures because they are warm blooded, lizards would retreat polewards, to assume that the natural world would NOT flourish without humans is extremely conceited. Yes some organisms would suffer, Rat, cockroach and seagull populations would initially crash without our waste to scavenge as would populations of other domesticated livestock like cows. But your point is backwards - communities of species wouldn't need to survive in alternative habitats to bring about new ecosystems. That's the creationist view on natural selection that species are designed for a purpose / habitat. The species that are available would adapt to fit in whatever niches were empty/available and filling those niches would create another burst of biodiversity providing we do not leave a nuclear wasteland behind, the very point I made initially. global warming being a better way to kill off humans than war if you take into account what is to come after us. Alternatlively if biodiversity doesn't increase, what you would get is an increase in current populations, although you would expect greater migration once humans stop using roads, so animals in preindustrial or unaccustomed haibitats are very likely
Watch "when Humans are gone" it's a little weak in it doesn't explain where humans went or what killed them off but it extrapolates how animals would flourish and how man made artifacts would disappear or create further niches for animals (pigeons using buildings already perfectly adapted) it shows how quickly evidence of humans can be wiped from the planet, with structures not being maintained, and how there could be power in places for as much as 2-10 years because if things like the hoover dam power plant and other renewable power stations.
If global warming kills us off, the ecosystems will recover (Nuclear winter notwithstanding), if they can recover from meteor strikes, blankets of ice that reach the equator. Essentially we would eventuall return to a time when the antarctic was lush forests if global warming continued, there would be a whole continent for new life to emerge, if it could compete with penguins. The re-emergence of seals to the land would be a possible example.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Pete, I did 3 years of it at university and there was no relevant "why" other than maintaining human civilisation at the current level. In fact Uni basically made me feel that if anything the extreme changes humans are bringing about (I admit I do agree that WE're the ones inciting change in global climate) are tiny compared to what the planet has already been through.
If we make it too hot to live, ice caps will melt, water levels will raise, increase in ocean surface area allows for increase in algae which fix more CO2 from the atmosphere (compared to plats whose CO2 fixing is a little above a net value of zero as the don't photosynthesize at night), die and lay down the next generation of ocean bound oil. This cycle reduces atmospheric CO2 because there is less land and thus less CO2 producing organisms, whislt similtaneously increasing evaporation (due to increased heat and surface water) which develop clouds which reflect heat back out to space and effectively cool the planet. it's a process that has happened before, the only reason it is a problem now is because our civilisation will be badly effected. we're not worrying for the planet, we're worrying for ourselves.
There are obital factors which are thought to account for regular Glacial periods, but the fact (and this makes me laugh sometimes) is that we are IN AN ICE AGE NOW! the fact is that any period of colder weather (yes Colder) in which large portions of the earth are covered in ice is classed as an ice age, what we commonly call the last ice age was in fact the last glacial period, we're not even halfway through the earths interglacial period yet because we still have ice at the poles.
If you imagine you're an alien and look at the earth as if you don't care if everyone dies, you get a much clearer picture of how egocentric our race is.
Pete, I did 3 years of it at university and there was no relevant "why" other than maintaining human civilisation at the current level. In fact Uni basically made me feel that if anything the extreme changes humans are bringing about (I admit I do agree that WE're the ones inciting change in global climate) are tiny compared to what the planet has already been through.
If we make it too hot to live, ice caps will melt, water levels will raise, increase in ocean surface area allows for increase in algae which fix more CO2 from the atmosphere (compared to plats whose CO2 fixing is a little above a net value of zero as the don't photosynthesize at night), die and lay down the next generation of ocean bound oil. This cycle reduces atmospheric CO2 because there is less land and thus less CO2 producing organisms, whislt similtaneously increasing evaporation (due to increased heat and surface water) which develop clouds which reflect heat back out to space and effectively cool the planet. it's a process that has happened before, the only reason it is a problem now is because our civilisation will be badly effected. we're not worrying for the planet, we're worrying for ourselves.
There are obital factors which are thought to account for regular Glacial periods, but the fact (and this makes me laugh sometimes) is that we are IN AN ICE AGE NOW! the fact is that any period of colder weather (yes Colder) in which large portions of the earth are covered in ice is classed as an ice age, what we commonly call the last ice age was in fact the last glacial period, we're not even halfway through the earths interglacial period yet because we still have ice at the poles.
If you imagine you're an alien and look at the earth as if you don't care if everyone dies, you get a much clearer picture of how egocentric our race is.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
Right
Mynci; Your view that global warming should be welcomed and a population cull is in order is rather bleak.
The most important effects of Global warming are laid out beautifully in the book 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas which I heartily recommend. The most important (to my mind) medium term effects are mass starvation and chronic water stress.
It's important to realise that we are talking about geological time here. It has been 2,000 years since Christ and that is really all the recorded history most people care about at all. Global warming will make the habit inhospitable for perhaps 100,000 years. The planet returns to equilibrium slowly if at all, and lost species are lost forever (though I'm actually not very concerned about biodiversity, it seems a shame to lose it but whatever, bigger things are afoot).
It's just very selfish to do such immense damage to the thousands of generations that will follow us on this planet.
Right
Mynci; Your view that global warming should be welcomed and a population cull is in order is rather bleak.
The most important effects of Global warming are laid out beautifully in the book 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas which I heartily recommend. The most important (to my mind) medium term effects are mass starvation and chronic water stress.
It's important to realise that we are talking about geological time here. It has been 2,000 years since Christ and that is really all the recorded history most people care about at all. Global warming will make the habit inhospitable for perhaps 100,000 years. The planet returns to equilibrium slowly if at all, and lost species are lost forever (though I'm actually not very concerned about biodiversity, it seems a shame to lose it but whatever, bigger things are afoot).
It's just very selfish to do such immense damage to the thousands of generations that will follow us on this planet.
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
isnt Mynci saying that really it is not "us" being selfish and doing damage to future generations, and ascribing to that view is really an arrogant belief in humanities own importance?
fluctuations in earths environment are normal and many species have died before us, many will die in the future, and what makes us so special that we shouldnt?
yes that view is bleak, but by no means does it mean it should be welcomed, rather he's just saying that in reality we are not as important and all powerful as we like to believe.
isnt Mynci saying that really it is not "us" being selfish and doing damage to future generations, and ascribing to that view is really an arrogant belief in humanities own importance?
fluctuations in earths environment are normal and many species have died before us, many will die in the future, and what makes us so special that we shouldnt?
yes that view is bleak, but by no means does it mean it should be welcomed, rather he's just saying that in reality we are not as important and all powerful as we like to believe.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Indeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know). It's been seen that the planet initially tried to take up the additional CO2, it INCREASED Co2 fixing. changes we make to emissions could result in something worse than warming, Cooling. Research needs to be done in what could happen after we've "saved ourselves" we need to make sure we don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire so to speak. the environment's changing to what's happening, what would stopping do? if we stopped and oil was banned tomorrow, how would the environment react? DO WE KNOW? we know what will happen if we don't, what will happen if we do? in the 70's there was fear of global cooling because of atmospheric smoke blocking sunlight. We're focused on a target with no idea what the environmental backlash "could" be.
Spanner - Abiotic means not alive and not coming from a living organism CO2 is NOT an abiotic factor as it is the result of a living process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiotic
although I should say not all CO2 is abiotic I'm sure much can be classed as such.
changes in salinity and PH can be tolerated by organisms, if the change is gradual and doesn't exceed the biological tolerances by too great a factor. and depends if the creature has a permeable skin or not.
Changes to species homes have empirical data for adaption and change of the species in line with changing habitat. peppered moths in the midlands, The changes from grey to black wings (melanism) and back again over the time industrialisation took place, black wings survived better due to camoflage, and have now nearly gone again since industrial processes produce less soot, the black winged variation (malanic form) of the moth is now again in decline (Please note this is NOT evolution but adaptation as both forms are naturally occuring) but goes to show how adaption can be quick, without slow evolutionary steps, which everyone assumes will be required for their survival. if anyone was taught that example as beinig evolution, sorry you were fibbed to
My point is for us to have lasting or catastrophic negative effect we would have to poison the planet VERY badly, so badly I expect we'd be the first to go.
Edit
Essentially what I am saying is if oil was banned tomorrow what effect would that have on nature? the planet adapted to absorb MORE CO2 initially with the start of industrialisation. would temperatures continue to rise naturally as we were heading from glacial period to zero ice then back to glacial OR could we inadvertantly start the process for the next glacial to start and then need to burn fossil fuels to undo our undoing? should we worry about our effects on climate OR the effects of climate on US, because I think we have the emphasis wrong.
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242648121)
Indeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know). It's been seen that the planet initially tried to take up the additional CO2, it INCREASED Co2 fixing. changes we make to emissions could result in something worse than warming, Cooling. Research needs to be done in what could happen after we've "saved ourselves" we need to make sure we don't jump out of the frying pan into the fire so to speak. the environment's changing to what's happening, what would stopping do? if we stopped and oil was banned tomorrow, how would the environment react? DO WE KNOW? we know what will happen if we don't, what will happen if we do? in the 70's there was fear of global cooling because of atmospheric smoke blocking sunlight. We're focused on a target with no idea what the environmental backlash "could" be.
Spanner - Abiotic means not alive and not coming from a living organism CO2 is NOT an abiotic factor as it is the result of a living process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abioticalthough I should say not all CO2 is abiotic I'm sure much can be classed as such.
changes in salinity and PH can be tolerated by organisms, if the change is gradual and doesn't exceed the biological tolerances by too great a factor. and depends if the creature has a permeable skin or not.
Changes to species homes have empirical data for adaption and change of the species in line with changing habitat. peppered moths in the midlands, The changes from grey to black wings (melanism) and back again over the time industrialisation took place, black wings survived better due to camoflage, and have now nearly gone again since industrial processes produce less soot, the black winged variation (malanic form) of the moth is now again in decline (Please note this is NOT evolution but adaptation as both forms are naturally occuring) but goes to show how adaption can be quick, without slow evolutionary steps, which everyone assumes will be required for their survival. if anyone was taught that example as beinig evolution, sorry you were fibbed to
My point is for us to have lasting or catastrophic negative effect we would have to poison the planet VERY badly, so badly I expect we'd be the first to go.
Edit
Essentially what I am saying is if oil was banned tomorrow what effect would that have on nature? the planet adapted to absorb MORE CO2 initially with the start of industrialisation. would temperatures continue to rise naturally as we were heading from glacial period to zero ice then back to glacial OR could we inadvertantly start the process for the next glacial to start and then need to burn fossil fuels to undo our undoing? should we worry about our effects on climate OR the effects of climate on US, because I think we have the emphasis wrong.
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242648121)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MascotRight
Mynci; Your view that global warming should be welcomed and a population cull is in order is rather bleak.
The most important effects of Global warming are laid out beautifully in the book 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas which I heartily recommend. The most important (to my mind) medium term effects are mass starvation and chronic water stress.
It's important to realise that we are talking about geological time here. It has been 2,000 years since Christ and that is really all the recorded history most people care about at all. Global warming will make the habit inhospitable for perhaps 100,000 years. The planet returns to equilibrium slowly if at all, and lost species are lost forever (though I'm actually not very concerned about biodiversity, it seems a shame to lose it but whatever, bigger things are afoot).
It's just very selfish to do such immense damage to the thousands of generations that will follow us on this planet.
Well said Mascot. I agree we need to reduce oil use, but instead of banning it, I’d just keep raising the price
I think many are missing the point, and think global warming is something that is going to happen. The reality is that it’s happening now, and food shortages and drought are already with us. For example, rice was rationed in The United States of America for the first time ever last year, towns in Australia are out of water and many people in the Pacific are now environmental refugees due to rising sea levels.
The solution is for each and every one of us to start doing something. It doesn’t take much effort to switch of a light bulb when you leave a room.
Originally Posted By: MynciIndeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know).
Are you guy serious? I’ve never heard such uninformed codswallop; well since the last skeptic that is It’s like you guys are living in a vacum and hiding behind a wall of words.
Originally Posted By: MynciSpanner - Abiotic means not alive and not coming from a living organism CO2 is NOT an abiotic factor as it is the result of a living process
No offence Mynci, but are you saying Co2 is alive?
From wiki: In biology, abiotic components are non-living chemical and physical factors in the environment. Generally, things that were once living are considered part of the biotic component, but body waste such as feces, urine (and of course carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water from respiration) are considered part of the abiotic component since it was never living in that organism.
Guys, good arguments, but hey what’s missing is a fundamental understanding of the biology and working of our planet.
Originally Posted By: MascotRight
Mynci; Your view that global warming should be welcomed and a population cull is in order is rather bleak.
The most important effects of Global warming are laid out beautifully in the book 6 Degrees by Mark Lynas which I heartily recommend. The most important (to my mind) medium term effects are mass starvation and chronic water stress.
It's important to realise that we are talking about geological time here. It has been 2,000 years since Christ and that is really all the recorded history most people care about at all. Global warming will make the habit inhospitable for perhaps 100,000 years. The planet returns to equilibrium slowly if at all, and lost species are lost forever (though I'm actually not very concerned about biodiversity, it seems a shame to lose it but whatever, bigger things are afoot).
It's just very selfish to do such immense damage to the thousands of generations that will follow us on this planet.
Well said Mascot. I agree we need to reduce oil use, but instead of banning it, I’d just keep raising the price
I think many are missing the point, and think global warming is something that is going to happen. The reality is that it’s happening now, and food shortages and drought are already with us. For example, rice was rationed in The United States of America for the first time ever last year, towns in Australia are out of water and many people in the Pacific are now environmental refugees due to rising sea levels.
The solution is for each and every one of us to start doing something. It doesn’t take much effort to switch of a light bulb when you leave a room.
Originally Posted By: MynciIndeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know).
Are you guy serious? I’ve never heard such uninformed codswallop; well since the last skeptic that is
It’s like you guys are living in a vacum and hiding behind a wall of words. Originally Posted By: MynciSpanner - Abiotic means not alive and not coming from a living organism CO2 is NOT an abiotic factor as it is the result of a living process
No offence Mynci, but are you saying Co2 is alive?
From wiki: In biology, abiotic components are non-living chemical and physical factors in the environment. Generally, things that were once living are considered part of the biotic component, but body waste such as feces, urine (and of course carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water from respiration) are considered part of the abiotic component since it was never living in that organism.
Guys, good arguments, but hey what’s missing is a fundamental understanding of the biology and working of our planet.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
old hand
1,107 posts
Location: In a test pit, Mackay, Australia
Posted:
[quote=Stone]
I think many are missing the point, and think global warming is something that is going to happen. The reality is that its happening now,
Indeed. The ice age we're in right now began 2.6Myr ago, it was at it's coldest 18Kyr ago and it's warmest 8Kyr ago. Superimposed on the long-term glacial-interglacial climactic changes are small-term periods of relative warming and relative cooling. Don't forget about 150 years ago the Thames regularly froze over, 1500 years ago grapevines were cultivated in northern England.
We need to stop polluting certainly, we need to cut down on deforestation and with it the destruction of unique environments, but we also need to stop with the completely erroneous view that the present climatic conditions are what it's been and what it's always going to be as well. The climate changes, always has, always will and there's no-one out there who can say why.
Yes, we need to take responsibility for mucking up the oceans and spilling oil all over the Arctic, but mankind in general, and General Motors in particular are not the cause of long-term climatic variation.
[quote=Stone]
I think many are missing the point, and think global warming is something that is going to happen. The reality is that its happening now,
Indeed. The ice age we're in right now began 2.6Myr ago, it was at it's coldest 18Kyr ago and it's warmest 8Kyr ago. Superimposed on the long-term glacial-interglacial climactic changes are small-term periods of relative warming and relative cooling. Don't forget about 150 years ago the Thames regularly froze over, 1500 years ago grapevines were cultivated in northern England.
We need to stop polluting certainly, we need to cut down on deforestation and with it the destruction of unique environments, but we also need to stop with the completely erroneous view that the present climatic conditions are what it's been and what it's always going to be as well. The climate changes, always has, always will and there's no-one out there who can say why.
Yes, we need to take responsibility for mucking up the oceans and spilling oil all over the Arctic, but mankind in general, and General Motors in particular are not the cause of long-term climatic variation.
There is a slight possibility that I am not actually right all of the time.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Sorry, all that mankind in general is not responsible, seems like excuses to hide behind, and ignore reality. When 300 to 400 year old river red gums start dying on the Murray flood plains you have to think something is wrong.
I’m with CSIRO on this one: Climate change impacts on Australia and ... gas emissions.
BTW, General Motors has gone bust because it failed to reacted to a changing global environment.
For more information on how climate change works, see:
climate change
Climate change poses an urgent threat to Australia and the world. Understanding the climate system and how it is changing now and in the future will enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while preparing for the unavoidable impacts of climate change on our health, infrastructure, environment and economy.
Here is another CSIRO link:
The Great Global Warming Swindle: a critique
Jones D, Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M. 2007. The Great Global Warming Swindle a critique. Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 20.
The overwhelming view amongst climate scientists is that twentieth century global warming is largely due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from increased industrialization over the last 100-150 years.
Mr Durkin presents an alternative view that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity. His, The Great Global Warming Swindle television documentary argues against conventional scientific understanding of the degree and cause of recent, observed climate change.
The documentary does not attempt to argue the latter view through any critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies. Rather, it contends that modern climate scientists are at best seriously misguided in their collective opinion on the nature and causes of global warming, or are at worst guilty of lying to the rest of the community. Publicity for the documentary leans heavily towards the latter, stating that global warming is 'the biggest scam of modern times'.
This article by researchers of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology endeavours to redress the claims of the documentary.
I've made a few edits
EDITED_BY: Stone (1242711705)
Sorry, all that mankind in general is not responsible, seems like excuses to hide behind, and ignore reality. When 300 to 400 year old river red gums start dying on the Murray flood plains you have to think something is wrong.
I’m with CSIRO on this one: Climate change impacts on Australia and ... gas emissions.
BTW, General Motors has gone bust because it failed to reacted to a changing global environment.
For more information on how climate change works, see:
climate change
Climate change poses an urgent threat to Australia and the world. Understanding the climate system and how it is changing now and in the future will enable us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while preparing for the unavoidable impacts of climate change on our health, infrastructure, environment and economy.
Here is another CSIRO link:
The Great Global Warming Swindle: a critique
Jones D, Watkins A, Braganza K, Coughlan M. 2007. The Great Global Warming Swindle a critique. Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Vol. 20.
The overwhelming view amongst climate scientists is that twentieth century global warming is largely due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from increased industrialization over the last 100-150 years.
Mr Durkin presents an alternative view that recent global warming is neither significant nor due to human activity. His, The Great Global Warming Swindle television documentary argues against conventional scientific understanding of the degree and cause of recent, observed climate change.
The documentary does not attempt to argue the latter view through any critical deconstruction of climate science orthodoxies. Rather, it contends that modern climate scientists are at best seriously misguided in their collective opinion on the nature and causes of global warming, or are at worst guilty of lying to the rest of the community. Publicity for the documentary leans heavily towards the latter, stating that global warming is 'the biggest scam of modern times'.
This article by researchers of the National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology endeavours to redress the claims of the documentary.
I've made a few edits
EDITED_BY: Stone (1242711705)
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
Originally Posted By: stoneOriginally Posted By: MynciIndeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know).
Are you guy serious? I’ve never heard such uninformed codswallop; well since the last skeptic that is It’s like you guys are living in a vacum and hiding behind a wall of words.
i'd just like to point out i was explaining myncis position, not my own. certainly humans have contributed greatly to global warming in recent history, and reducing our impact is a positive, but im not really sure we have the collective power to control ourselves.
Originally Posted By: stoneOriginally Posted By: MynciIndeed, Mr Majestic has it right, I'm not saying we shouldn't act to stop global warming, but we should think about the result of what stopping the warming could do, beyond saving land for humankind, reversing OUR impact should be paramount but we have to be careful of not going too far and creating a negative carbon output (unlikely I know).
Are you guy serious? I’ve never heard such uninformed codswallop; well since the last skeptic that is
It’s like you guys are living in a vacum and hiding behind a wall of words. i'd just like to point out i was explaining myncis position, not my own. certainly humans have contributed greatly to global warming in recent history, and reducing our impact is a positive, but im not really sure we have the collective power to control ourselves.
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
BRONZE Member
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
nut.
756 posts
Location: Bouncing off the walls., England (UK)
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MynciChanges to species homes have empirical data for adaption and change of the species in line with changing habitat. peppered moths in the midlands, The changes from grey to black wings (melanism) and back again over the time industrialisation took place, black wings survived better due to camoflage, and have now nearly gone again since industrial processes produce less soot, the black winged variation (malanic form) of the moth is now again in decline (Please note this is NOT evolution but adaptation as both forms are naturally occuring) but goes to show how adaption can be quick, without slow evolutionary steps, which everyone assumes will be required for their survival. if anyone was taught that example as beinig evolution, sorry you were fibbed to
Uhh.. it's not evolution because both forms are naturally occurring? So does one have to be un-natural for it to be evolution?
It's an example of how the process of evolution works, which is how it's generally taught- just 'cos we never saw when the first dark/light (which did come first?) peppered moth occurring don't make it not evolution.. (That's possibly the point you were making, I've just got out of bed..)
Originally Posted By: Mynci
My point is for us to have lasting or catastrophic negative effect we would have to poison the planet VERY badly, so badly I expect we'd be the first to go.
Approximately one species every 15 minutes is calling you wrong. Even if most of them are probably beetles.
I'm going to play here, and throw in the point that- as it currently stands, we are the only chance for the future of the planet.
By that, I mean the very distant future- the point where the sun dies- if life of any kind is going to survive from Earth, it has to get to another solar system, and it's looking like we're the only species with even a hope of developing anything like that capability.
Okay, apart from maybe some space-floaty bacteria.
EDITED_BY: hamamelis (1242719758)
Originally Posted By: MynciChanges to species homes have empirical data for adaption and change of the species in line with changing habitat. peppered moths in the midlands, The changes from grey to black wings (melanism) and back again over the time industrialisation took place, black wings survived better due to camoflage, and have now nearly gone again since industrial processes produce less soot, the black winged variation (malanic form) of the moth is now again in decline (Please note this is NOT evolution but adaptation as both forms are naturally occuring) but goes to show how adaption can be quick, without slow evolutionary steps, which everyone assumes will be required for their survival. if anyone was taught that example as beinig evolution, sorry you were fibbed to
Uhh.. it's not evolution because both forms are naturally occurring? So does one have to be un-natural for it to be evolution?
It's an example of how the process of evolution works, which is how it's generally taught- just 'cos we never saw when the first dark/light (which did come first?) peppered moth occurring don't make it not evolution.. (That's possibly the point you were making, I've just got out of bed..)
Originally Posted By: Mynci
My point is for us to have lasting or catastrophic negative effect we would have to poison the planet VERY badly, so badly I expect we'd be the first to go.
Approximately one species every 15 minutes is calling you wrong. Even if most of them are probably beetles.
I'm going to play here, and throw in the point that- as it currently stands, we are the only chance for the future of the planet.
By that, I mean the very distant future- the point where the sun dies- if life of any kind is going to survive from Earth, it has to get to another solar system, and it's looking like we're the only species with even a hope of developing anything like that capability.
Okay, apart from maybe some space-floaty bacteria.
EDITED_BY: hamamelis (1242719758)
THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!
If that's okay with you?
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
I'm not claiming global warming is a swindle you have that wrong. I believe we are contributing to increases in global temperature. What I am saying is firstly is that it is entirely selfish (NOT saying it's wrong but our motiviations are selfish NOT altruistic as everybody believes) the other factor was I did a search for "WHY to stop global warming" and there were very limited reasons that did not point towards saving humans.
My other point is the fact that trends have shown that the planet increased it's CO2 uptake to try and match our output but couldn't manage it. I was arguing the point that I could find no research on what would happen if oil was banned tomorrow and the emissions suddenly stopped with all the CO2 countering action still in place. could the balance be tipped the wrong way and bring about any global cooling.
Essential I am pointing out that we are trying to stop gloabl warming to save human lives. the more human lives that are on this planet the more CO2 we will produce. therefore the best way to "SAVE the planet" as eco hippies say (By which I mean save humankind because WE couldn't destroy the planet unless we tried very hard) would be population control.
With population control you could cap emissions to a level that was sustainable to the planet whilst we researched alternate power that would support a given population.
I see Trying to save the global population AND keep our way of life as almost diametrically opposed. If population reduced (by say the effects of global warming) we would be in a better position to effectively reduce emissions we're caught trying to achieve opposite goals with a single method.
My other points were made to show that without humans the world would be fine. I honestly believe we need a massive natural disaster to save us and we could bring it about ourselves, how lucky is that I was also pointing out the fact that many environmentalists have got things completely wrong and don't actually know what they're fighting for - people not the planet. Imagine if the dinosaurs had been able to stop the meteor striking the earth. would we be here? the only reason ecosystems in australia would be destroyed is because there is no space for migration because we are in the way we take up so much space. we could give land back to nature but it would inflict upon OUR lifestyle. ecosystems can recover they always have, without US.
Edit
Hammelis - ok we won't be the first, but maybe we should - please also note the number of known species on earth is not decreasing... what does that tell you new species are discovered just as fast. and how can you prove extinction in beetles? just because we can't find them easily. And who is to say that it's all us causinig it.
Too leave the solar system we will need to use oil. to counter the emissions from industry needed for the developments required we need to reduce the population so the supply is sufficient for demand. no use using all that oil in plastic toys and TV's now is there if we need it to escape the solar system
you have me all wrong, i'm not against reducing emission, or against global warming theory. I'm against people. call me a de-humanitarian. the ways to sort it are simple population reduction. call it the cull like with deer to prevent them stripping the area of edible material that would cause them ALL to die. there are just TOO MANY OF US. my issue is most people want to fight global warming to save US which is contraindicatory.
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242722135)
I'm not claiming global warming is a swindle you have that wrong. I believe we are contributing to increases in global temperature. What I am saying is firstly is that it is entirely selfish (NOT saying it's wrong but our motiviations are selfish NOT altruistic as everybody believes) the other factor was I did a search for "WHY to stop global warming" and there were very limited reasons that did not point towards saving humans.
My other point is the fact that trends have shown that the planet increased it's CO2 uptake to try and match our output but couldn't manage it. I was arguing the point that I could find no research on what would happen if oil was banned tomorrow and the emissions suddenly stopped with all the CO2 countering action still in place. could the balance be tipped the wrong way and bring about any global cooling.
Essential I am pointing out that we are trying to stop gloabl warming to save human lives. the more human lives that are on this planet the more CO2 we will produce. therefore the best way to "SAVE the planet" as eco hippies say (By which I mean save humankind because WE couldn't destroy the planet unless we tried very hard) would be population control.
With population control you could cap emissions to a level that was sustainable to the planet whilst we researched alternate power that would support a given population.
I see Trying to save the global population AND keep our way of life as almost diametrically opposed. If population reduced (by say the effects of global warming) we would be in a better position to effectively reduce emissions
we're caught trying to achieve opposite goals with a single method. My other points were made to show that without humans the world would be fine. I honestly believe we need a massive natural disaster to save us and we could bring it about ourselves, how lucky is that
I was also pointing out the fact that many environmentalists have got things completely wrong and don't actually know what they're fighting for - people not the planet. Imagine if the dinosaurs had been able to stop the meteor striking the earth. would we be here? the only reason ecosystems in australia would be destroyed is because there is no space for migration because we are in the way we take up so much space. we could give land back to nature but it would inflict upon OUR lifestyle. ecosystems can recover they always have, without US.Edit
Hammelis - ok we won't be the first, but maybe we should - please also note the number of known species on earth is not decreasing... what does that tell you
new species are discovered just as fast. and how can you prove extinction in beetles? just because we can't find them easily. And who is to say that it's all us causinig it.Too leave the solar system we will need to use oil. to counter the emissions from industry needed for the developments required we need to reduce the population so the supply is sufficient for demand. no use using all that oil in plastic toys and TV's now is there if we need it to escape the solar system
you have me all wrong, i'm not against reducing emission, or against global warming theory. I'm against people. call me a de-humanitarian. the ways to sort it are simple population reduction. call it the cull like with deer to prevent them stripping the area of edible material that would cause them ALL to die. there are just TOO MANY OF US. my issue is most people want to fight global warming to save US which is contraindicatory.
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242722135)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Mynci, I get the point about population control, but think you are back peddling on the rest
Originally Posted By: MynciWith population control you could cap emissions to a level that was sustainable to the planet whilst we researched alternate power that would support a given population.
Mynci, all you are really are doing here is putting off reducing emissions. Fiddling while Rome burns
Originally Posted By: MynciIf population reduced (by say the effects of global warming) we would be in a better position to effectively reduce emissions we're caught trying to achieve opposite goals with a single method.
I still don’t think you understand what’s happening to the planet. By that time life on the planet will be extinct. All you are doing is throwing up unrealistic scenarios in an attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for what’s happening, now!
Originally Posted By: MynciMy other points were made to show that without humans the world would be fine. I honestly believe we need a massive natural disaster to save us and we could bring it about ourselves, how lucky is that I was also pointing out the fact that many environmentalists have got things completely wrong and don't actually know what they're fighting for - people not the planet. Imagine if the dinosaurs had been able to stop the meteor striking the earth. would we be here? the only reason ecosystems in australia would be destroyed is because there is no space for migration because we are in the way we take up so much space. we could give land back to nature but it would inflict upon OUR lifestyle. ecosystems can recover they always have, without US.
Mynci, humans do live on the planet. We are living the natural disaster. Dinosaurs didn’t stop a meteor strike, so what the point? Ecosystems in Australia and the rest of the world are being destroyed because we use them as toilets. I think it absolute rubbish to say something like “ecosystems can recover they always have, without US”. Just because something has recovered in the past does not mean it will happen in the future. That’s just the ultimate excuse to do nothing. Check out some of the stuff published in the CSIRO links.
Originally Posted By: Mynciplease also note the number of known species on earth is not decreasing...
Mynci, that's absloute rubbish, did you make it up? When you say new species are being discovered, what’s happening is old species are being given names. The overall number of species is declining. There is just not the diversity, of say marsupials, birds, frogs or whateve in Australia as there was 20 years ago. Try taking a walk in a forest sometime, preferably while there are still animals and birds left there.
cheers
Mynci, I get the point about population control, but think you are back peddling on the rest
Originally Posted By: MynciWith population control you could cap emissions to a level that was sustainable to the planet whilst we researched alternate power that would support a given population.
Mynci, all you are really are doing here is putting off reducing emissions. Fiddling while Rome burns
Originally Posted By: MynciIf population reduced (by say the effects of global warming) we would be in a better position to effectively reduce emissions we're caught trying to achieve opposite goals with a single method.
I still don’t think you understand what’s happening to the planet. By that time life on the planet will be extinct. All you are doing is throwing up unrealistic scenarios in an attempt to avoid taking any responsibility for what’s happening, now!
Originally Posted By: MynciMy other points were made to show that without humans the world would be fine. I honestly believe we need a massive natural disaster to save us and we could bring it about ourselves, how lucky is that I was also pointing out the fact that many environmentalists have got things completely wrong and don't actually know what they're fighting for - people not the planet. Imagine if the dinosaurs had been able to stop the meteor striking the earth. would we be here? the only reason ecosystems in australia would be destroyed is because there is no space for migration because we are in the way we take up so much space. we could give land back to nature but it would inflict upon OUR lifestyle. ecosystems can recover they always have, without US.
Mynci, humans do live on the planet. We are living the natural disaster. Dinosaurs didn’t stop a meteor strike, so what the point? Ecosystems in Australia and the rest of the world are being destroyed because we use them as toilets. I think it absolute rubbish to say something like “ecosystems can recover they always have, without US”. Just because something has recovered in the past does not mean it will happen in the future. That’s just the ultimate excuse to do nothing. Check out some of the stuff published in the CSIRO links.
Originally Posted By: Mynciplease also note the number of known species on earth is not decreasing...
Mynci, that's absloute rubbish, did you make it up? When you say new species are being discovered, what’s happening is old species are being given names. The overall number of species is declining. There is just not the diversity, of say marsupials, birds, frogs or whateve in Australia as there was 20 years ago. Try taking a walk in a forest sometime, preferably while there are still animals and birds left there.
cheers
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
enthusiast
301 posts
301 posts
Posted:
If oil were banned tomorrow and all anthroprogenic carbon forcing stopped then we would still experiance warming. This warming is the "Commitment" level and is graphed alongside more realistic scenarios in the latest (fourth) IPCC report (www.ipcc.ch).
I really wish people would stop talking about the Thames freezing and the so-called Maedival warm period. The Thames has never frozen since London Bridge was redesigned with fewer arches, speeding up the river flow and thus making it more resistant to freezing.
Crop yields of corn, weat and rice fall 10% for every degree warming we experiance (Scientific American, may 11th). It is these effects and even more so the water problems that worry me most. I fear hunger, starvation, failed states and relentless war over increasingly scarce resources.
Scientists believe (Nature, April 30th) that we can only emit a trillion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide total if warming is going to be contained to two degrees or less, and we're already well over half way through that allocation, and emissions are still rising. If we are to stay within a set ammount then at some point we must stop emitting any carbon at all. if we continue to burn fossil fuels faster than they are laid down then we will continue to change the planet irreversibly. No ammount of emissions reductions is ever going to come close to the elimination we will eventually need. At some point we will need to ban oil and the sooner we begin talking about it the sooner we will succeed.
Of course it must be done slowly....I will re-iterate. I favour an import quota scheme; any domestic producer or importer of fossil fuels would be forced to buy import quotas. These quotas would be auctioned annually by the government and traded as any other commodity. The total available quota would be reduced gradually and the price importers paid for their quota would be passed on to consumers as higher fuel prices.
EDITED_BY: Mascot (1242773164)
If oil were banned tomorrow and all anthroprogenic carbon forcing stopped then we would still experiance warming. This warming is the "Commitment" level and is graphed alongside more realistic scenarios in the latest (fourth) IPCC report (www.ipcc.ch).
I really wish people would stop talking about the Thames freezing and the so-called Maedival warm period. The Thames has never frozen since London Bridge was redesigned with fewer arches, speeding up the river flow and thus making it more resistant to freezing.
Crop yields of corn, weat and rice fall 10% for every degree warming we experiance (Scientific American, may 11th). It is these effects and even more so the water problems that worry me most. I fear hunger, starvation, failed states and relentless war over increasingly scarce resources.
Scientists believe (Nature, April 30th) that we can only emit a trillion tonnes of Carbon Dioxide total if warming is going to be contained to two degrees or less, and we're already well over half way through that allocation, and emissions are still rising. If we are to stay within a set ammount then at some point we must stop emitting any carbon at all. if we continue to burn fossil fuels faster than they are laid down then we will continue to change the planet irreversibly. No ammount of emissions reductions is ever going to come close to the elimination we will eventually need. At some point we will need to ban oil and the sooner we begin talking about it the sooner we will succeed.
Of course it must be done slowly....I will re-iterate. I favour an import quota scheme; any domestic producer or importer of fossil fuels would be forced to buy import quotas. These quotas would be auctioned annually by the government and traded as any other commodity. The total available quota would be reduced gradually and the price importers paid for their quota would be passed on to consumers as higher fuel prices.
EDITED_BY: Mascot (1242773164)
Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Stone I didn't make it up there is a MASSIVE rate of new species being found, amphibians, deepwater fish, insects and even large mammals, yes I agree 1000's of species are being recorded as exinct the same way that mamalian species are UP 10% and there were 16,969 new sepcies found in 2006 alone not including bacterial species
https://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2129
you can't throw "a species is made extinct every 30 seconds" out without looking at the opposite side of the scale. Species loss is supposition as it's based on something "not there" they could be somewhere else. Species found are fact
OK Maybe I can't say life will be fine without us with 100% sureity, but you can't say it won't with a higher level. but on evidence on what life HAS been through I'll take that bet. How monumentally arrogant do you have to be to believe we can kill the planet. I agree we don't do any favours and there is much we can do but to say that just because something has happened in the past it WON'T happen again without any justifyable evidence is idiocy. I can say the sun will come up tomorrow with a pretty good basis in fact. How about this article linking the 5 biggest extintions in history to climate change
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2726751.ece
yes it supports the reduction of biodiversity but each of the previous extintions was followed by massive booms. This is also recorded fact we live it.
I agree I can't say for sure that this will happen but there is repetative evidence that this is what has happened before. Therefore I feel it is an argument with viable weight. You have to think on geological scales of time and stop being limited to human perceptions of time it's a veery narrow veiwpoint.
I'm not trying to avoid responsibility. What I'm saying is this is what will probably happen. as hammelis said the only way to survive as a species is to escape the planet, we'll need oil and advancement for that. The simple fact is that unless population is controlled, humans are heading for a crash, nature provides balance, predators, food sources, too many predators and they die off due to lack of food. we need population to be reduced to a level where industrialisation has negligable or lesser effects i'm not saying it will ever happen but without it we hit peak oil and crash. or hit peak oil and go to war, we will use the oil there's no doubting it, what I'm saying is to use it wisely for things that that can help remove the need for oil. It's no use finding that we need a petrochemically based part for energy from fusion or hydrogen cells that would cnacel the need for fossil burning if we've used all the oil or banned it. what a kick in the teeth that would be. Oil will be required to make advances to where we don't need oil anymore.
We don't need to ban oil we need a major natural disaster to reduce population because most people are not willing to stand up and say "I won't have children for the benefit of the planet" I honestly don't think environmentalists have that much strength of belief. I don't think anyone has. Can you see governments TELLING people that women can have a maximum of 1 birth? there would be uproar, it has to come from choice. You can't honestly say that with a much smaller global population (especially in developed countries) that it wouldn't help emissions or climate change can you.
I believe the eco-hippies can't change their focus because they are too set, too prideful to try another tack. and even if every environmentalist had no kids, you couldn't stop the catholics and those not educated well enough without government based population control. You need to focus on the source of the problem to solve it and that source is US. anything else is a wet band aid on the arm of the planet.
If you have a group of people walking around stabbing people, do you try and stop the people or go out and ban all knives o that a knife can never be used again? You stop the source, the "people" not the "tool" even though it has negative effects. We've all seen how banning knives works, badly. Banning oil would work as well as banning electricity or cars. we'd find another way to destroy the planet in the name of growth.
A little map of human population spread animated for you pleasure to show growth https://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
and one for density - https://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.html
we can push animals into the sea, ice or hot deserts if you want.
show me where the animals can live? regardless of climate change nature is screwed. Biodiversity is not threatened by climate change it's threatened by population growth and loss of habitat (ok climate change DOES threaten but you get my point, it's not the CAUSE). climate change is just another result of the same process. the cause is singular, the cure obvious.
Stone I didn't make it up there is a MASSIVE rate of new species being found, amphibians, deepwater fish, insects and even large mammals, yes I agree 1000's of species are being recorded as exinct the same way that mamalian species are UP 10% and there were 16,969 new sepcies found in 2006 alone not including bacterial species
https://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2129
you can't throw "a species is made extinct every 30 seconds" out without looking at the opposite side of the scale. Species loss is supposition as it's based on something "not there" they could be somewhere else. Species found are fact
OK Maybe I can't say life will be fine without us with 100% sureity, but you can't say it won't with a higher level. but on evidence on what life HAS been through I'll take that bet. How monumentally arrogant do you have to be to believe we can kill the planet. I agree we don't do any favours and there is much we can do but to say that just because something has happened in the past it WON'T happen again without any justifyable evidence is idiocy. I can say the sun will come up tomorrow with a pretty good basis in fact. How about this article linking the 5 biggest extintions in history to climate change
https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article2726751.ece
yes it supports the reduction of biodiversity but each of the previous extintions was followed by massive booms. This is also recorded fact we live it.
I agree I can't say for sure that this will happen but there is repetative evidence that this is what has happened before. Therefore I feel it is an argument with viable weight. You have to think on geological scales of time and stop being limited to human perceptions of time it's a veery narrow veiwpoint.
I'm not trying to avoid responsibility. What I'm saying is this is what will probably happen. as hammelis said the only way to survive as a species is to escape the planet, we'll need oil and advancement for that. The simple fact is that unless population is controlled, humans are heading for a crash, nature provides balance, predators, food sources, too many predators and they die off due to lack of food. we need population to be reduced to a level where industrialisation has negligable or lesser effects i'm not saying it will ever happen but without it we hit peak oil and crash. or hit peak oil and go to war, we will use the oil there's no doubting it, what I'm saying is to use it wisely for things that that can help remove the need for oil. It's no use finding that we need a petrochemically based part for energy from fusion or hydrogen cells that would cnacel the need for fossil burning if we've used all the oil or banned it. what a kick in the teeth that would be. Oil will be required to make advances to where we don't need oil anymore.
We don't need to ban oil we need a major natural disaster to reduce population because most people are not willing to stand up and say "I won't have children for the benefit of the planet" I honestly don't think environmentalists have that much strength of belief. I don't think anyone has. Can you see governments TELLING people that women can have a maximum of 1 birth? there would be uproar, it has to come from choice. You can't honestly say that with a much smaller global population (especially in developed countries) that it wouldn't help emissions or climate change can you.
I believe the eco-hippies can't change their focus because they are too set, too prideful to try another tack. and even if every environmentalist had no kids, you couldn't stop the catholics and those not educated well enough without government based population control. You need to focus on the source of the problem to solve it and that source is US. anything else is a wet band aid on the arm of the planet.
If you have a group of people walking around stabbing people, do you try and stop the people or go out and ban all knives o that a knife can never be used again? You stop the source, the "people" not the "tool" even though it has negative effects. We've all seen how banning knives works, badly. Banning oil would work as well as banning electricity or cars. we'd find another way to destroy the planet in the name of growth.
A little map of human population spread animated for you pleasure to show growth https://desip.igc.org/mapanim.html
and one for density - https://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/mapindex/popden.html
we can push animals into the sea, ice or hot deserts if you want.
show me where the animals can live? regardless of climate change nature is screwed. Biodiversity is not threatened by climate change it's threatened by population growth and loss of habitat (ok climate change DOES threaten but you get my point, it's not the CAUSE). climate change is just another result of the same process. the cause is singular, the cure obvious.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Mascot - one thing: BIG for standing up (and pay lots of $$$, errm don't have a # on my kayboard) for what you believe in!
That alone already makes a difference.
Oil, though, will continue to flow and be traded as long as there is any left. Enough technology and concepts in the drawer - yet it's how it works (so far): first the old technology is sold (out) - only then the new stuff comes on the table.
What you/we can do? Don't use cars unless really necessary, buy locally, etc. Practice what we preach... In India I now don't use heating, am working on cutting down my intercontinental airtravel as much as possible, planted a few trees, minimized my meat, stopped all the illicit stuff (after all, that stuff needs transportation too ) stopped the tobacco...
It's about being the people who change - the climate changes by itself only
Mascot - one thing: BIG
for standing up (and pay lots of $$$, errm don't have a # on my kayboard) for what you believe in!That alone already makes a difference.
Oil, though, will continue to flow and be traded as long as there is any left. Enough technology and concepts in the drawer - yet it's how it works (so far): first the old technology is sold (out) - only then the new stuff comes on the table.
What you/we can do? Don't use cars unless really necessary, buy locally, etc. Practice what we preach... In India I now don't use heating, am working on cutting down my intercontinental airtravel as much as possible, planted a few trees, minimized my meat, stopped all the illicit stuff (after all, that stuff needs transportation too
) stopped the tobacco... It's about being the people who change - the climate changes by itself only
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
This may sound harsh but I'm not winning friends in this discussion that's not the point. providing an opposing standpoint for balance is.
FireTom that's an awful thing to say. you can't congratulate someone just for standing up for what they believe in. Only if the cause is worthy. you could stand up for hitler, he had a cause (may have been abhorrent), and you can't say he didn't stand by it. (Next = not my belief but so don't shout) You could say by my argument he helped prevent climate change by reducing population (although there was a massive boom afterwards) Any person who causes massive death of humans is, but this is not the way to reduce population morally. What it is is the Predator effect of population control. when we had wars every 5 minutes population was stable, it's only peace that has brought a problem. so there's a different veiwpoint for you.
stand up for anti-climate change yes, but banning oil?
you may as well stand up for restricting development of 3rd world countries because it amounts to the same thing.
(although I don't know why I'm arguing, the death toll would probably reduce population a good whack and That is my solution to climate change after all...)
This may sound harsh but I'm not winning friends in this discussion
that's not the point. providing an opposing standpoint for balance is.FireTom that's an awful thing to say. you can't congratulate someone just for standing up for what they believe in. Only if the cause is worthy. you could stand up for hitler, he had a cause (may have been abhorrent), and you can't say he didn't stand by it. (Next = not my belief but so don't shout) You could say by my argument he helped prevent climate change by reducing population (although there was a massive boom afterwards) Any person who causes massive death of humans is, but this is not the way to reduce population morally. What it is is the Predator effect of population control. when we had wars every 5 minutes population was stable, it's only peace that has brought a problem. so there's a different veiwpoint for you.
stand up for anti-climate change yes, but banning oil?
you may as well stand up for restricting development of 3rd world countries because it amounts to the same thing.
(although I don't know why I'm arguing, the death toll would probably reduce population a good whack and That is my solution to climate change after all...)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
oops, now you got me back into it...
awful thing to congratulate someone for standing up for what they believe in (saving the planet)? Xcuse me for not having it spelt out to the last byte and falling for the conditioned good once again
[sigh] should really go now, stop finding excuses and finally start that video project...
oops, now you got me back into it...
awful thing to congratulate someone for standing up for what they believe in (saving the planet)? Xcuse me for not having it spelt out to the last byte and falling for the conditioned good once again
[sigh] should really go now, stop finding excuses and finally start that video project...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Not saving the planet tom, Banning oil - I agree with saving the planet, it's the means advertised by this thread I disagree to.
(I'm not being beligerent I do like a good discussion but the more shocking the bigger the impact) Good luck with the project
Not saving the planet tom, Banning oil - I agree with saving the planet, it's the means advertised by this thread I disagree to.
(I'm not being beligerent I do like a good discussion but the more shocking the bigger the impact) Good luck with the project
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
SILVER Member
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Rampant whirler.
2,418 posts
Location: Geelong, Victoria, Australia!
Posted:
If I understand correctly (and often I don't) but I don't think that "banning the oil trade" is really the aim of the organisation... its about eradicating oil from our diet but moreso shocking people into the realisation that it would be at some point well in the future to live without oil... you don't ban something like oxygen after all.
If I understand correctly (and often I don't) but I don't think that "banning the oil trade" is really the aim of the organisation... its about eradicating oil from our diet but moreso shocking people into the realisation that it would be at some point well in the future to live without oil... you don't ban something like oxygen after all.
stranger
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
To be honest global warming is happening now, in England at least every year seems to be the hottest on record, our seasons have changed even in my short 18 years. There are very regular flash floods and noone even seems to link this to global warming? In Australia there are severe droughts, increased forest fires and desertifcation going down. In countries all around the world age old rivers are drying up. The river basins in Africa are drying up. Theres a dramatic change in the build up of ice at the poles, we are now seeing a massive increase of newly formed ice that should have stayed frozen all year round. Islands are being evacuated.
Yet still we are cutting down hundreds of acres of ancient rainforest. We still churn out millions of tonned of pointless rubbish, we're still building coal fired power stations..
And we're all on the internet..
To be fair the only way to combat global warming would be to start now, it has to be a global movement. But will t4he governments listen? NEIN!
The UK governments currently planning on building 7 more coal power stations, and when we went to protest about this we were fillmed and documented and had our information shared with EON by the police. The governments put out nice adverts on TV with green images and a nice woman talking about saving the planet and cutting emissions. Thats crap. As long as our western populations are as dumbed down and energy guzzling as we are then nouts going to happen.
People don't seem to realise the severity of the situation and multi national companies are praying on this. Instead of the energy companies spending billions on greenwashing their firms perhaps they could spend the billions on building renewable energy..
I suggest we all plant trees. Oh and stop living the way that every one of us is living.
EDIT:
It doesnt help that the maximum ammount of people are planet can sustain is 8billion and we are at.. 6.7 and rising RAPIDLY..
Check out https://www.worldometers.info/
some really interesting statistics!
EDIT:
Anyone living in the UK please come to this https://climatecamp.org.uk/?q=node/468
every little helps.
EDITED_BY: FreakyHair (1242815179)
To be honest global warming is happening now, in England at least every year seems to be the hottest on record, our seasons have changed even in my short 18 years. There are very regular flash floods and noone even seems to link this to global warming? In Australia there are severe droughts, increased forest fires and desertifcation going down. In countries all around the world age old rivers are drying up. The river basins in Africa are drying up. Theres a dramatic change in the build up of ice at the poles, we are now seeing a massive increase of newly formed ice that should have stayed frozen all year round. Islands are being evacuated.
Yet still we are cutting down hundreds of acres of ancient rainforest. We still churn out millions of tonned of pointless rubbish, we're still building coal fired power stations..
And we're all on the internet..
To be fair the only way to combat global warming would be to start now, it has to be a global movement. But will t4he governments listen? NEIN!
The UK governments currently planning on building 7 more coal power stations, and when we went to protest about this we were fillmed and documented and had our information shared with EON by the police. The governments put out nice adverts on TV with green images and a nice woman talking about saving the planet and cutting emissions. Thats crap. As long as our western populations are as dumbed down and energy guzzling as we are then nouts going to happen.
People don't seem to realise the severity of the situation and multi national companies are praying on this. Instead of the energy companies spending billions on greenwashing their firms perhaps they could spend the billions on building renewable energy..
I suggest we all plant trees. Oh and stop living the way that every one of us is living.
EDIT:
It doesnt help that the maximum ammount of people are planet can sustain is 8billion and we are at.. 6.7 and rising RAPIDLY..
Check out https://www.worldometers.info/
some really interesting statistics!
EDIT:
Anyone living in the UK please come to this https://climatecamp.org.uk/?q=node/468
every little helps.
EDITED_BY: FreakyHair (1242815179)
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
errm and Mynci - wouldn't you agree that Hitler and Mascot at least are not sharing any physical similarities?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1242824930)
EDIT_REASON: grammarastics
errm and Mynci - wouldn't you agree that Hitler and Mascot at least are not sharing any physical similarities?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1242824930)
EDIT_REASON: grammarastics
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Mynci, they are new species, but they have always been there. It’s taxonomy discoveries resulting from new techniques in molecular genetics.
“These techniques show that what scientists thought to be a single widely distributed species is not one species at all, but rather a collection of small populations that look alike but are genetically and evolutionarily distinct. The very common dusky salamander, for instance, long thought to be a single population ranging throughout the U.S. Appalachian and Adirondack Mountains, from New York to Alabama, has now been found to made up of four separate species. While some have suggested that genetic “hair-splitting” has inflated the number of new species, recent studies have shown that “taxonomic inflation” is the exception, not the rule…. A common skipper butterfly species was found to be composed of ten species, each with a distinctive life history.”
Species are being identified, but there has not been an increase in the number of organisms on the planet. Got it?
As I said before, good arguments. You could probably convince me that the world was indeed flat but what’s missing is a fundamental understanding of the biology and the working of our planet. That’s why I’d suggest listening to the experts, like the good people at CSIRO (links above).
EDIT: I’ve added few points to improver readability.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1242873109)
EDIT_REASON: Calrity
Mynci, they are new species, but they have always been there. It’s taxonomy discoveries resulting from new techniques in molecular genetics.
“These techniques show that what scientists thought to be a single widely distributed species is not one species at all, but rather a collection of small populations that look alike but are genetically and evolutionarily distinct. The very common dusky salamander, for instance, long thought to be a single population ranging throughout the U.S. Appalachian and Adirondack Mountains, from New York to Alabama, has now been found to made up of four separate species. While some have suggested that genetic “hair-splitting” has inflated the number of new species, recent studies have shown that “taxonomic inflation” is the exception, not the rule…. A common skipper butterfly species was found to be composed of ten species, each with a distinctive life history.”
Species are being identified, but there has not been an increase in the number of organisms on the planet. Got it?
As I said before, good arguments. You could probably convince me that the world was indeed flat
but what’s missing is a fundamental understanding of the biology and the working of our planet. That’s why I’d suggest listening to the experts, like the good people at CSIRO (links above). EDIT: I’ve added few points to improver readability.
EDITED_BY: Stone (1242873109)
EDIT_REASON: Calrity
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
to be more honest, global warming has happened before - it's the mere foundation on wich mankind thrives at this point of evolution. On a further note: we will be wiped off the surface of this planet sooner or later, in the meantime we have the opportunity to live this life.
I still congratulate for using democratic means as to stand up for what you believe in. In fact that's adorable - yet it is unlikely to craete a huge impact. But you might touch a few people who - in turn might think their own lifestyle over.
Ideally they will change something in their lives as to support your cause, other than that they might find the courage as to actually use democratic means as to voice their own opinions and communicate them.
There is a lot that can be dun to curb global warming... one interesting means is to steam off less, another is to rather act than talk...
to all
to be more honest, global warming has happened before - it's the mere foundation on wich mankind thrives at this point of evolution. On a further note: we will be wiped off the surface of this planet sooner or later, in the meantime we have the opportunity to live this life.
I still congratulate for using democratic means as to stand up for what you believe in. In fact that's adorable - yet it is unlikely to craete a huge impact. But you might touch a few people who - in turn might think their own lifestyle over.
Ideally they will change something in their lives as to support your cause, other than that they might find the courage as to actually use democratic means as to voice their own opinions and communicate them.
There is a lot that can be dun to curb global warming... one interesting means is to steam off less, another is to rather act than talk...
to all the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Stone it's not all taxonomic and even if it is, if species are really only changing taxonomically is that not proof of diversification? these "new" species are in fact a single species diversifying.
Quite a few are True new species (mostly because we are getting deeper in oceans so on 1 trip you can find 20 entirely new species of fish or crustacean.) they found a new stripey rabbit (in Australia I believe actually), a new type of antelope but I agree there are changes taxonomy (now 2 species of african elephant, the ribust and gracile forms no longer thought to be a subspecies). True the number of organisms isn't increasing (could you imagine if you had to count all the animals) we're taking up all the space so there is no room / habitats for them to exploit.
All this is only proof of the immutability of species. You will always have extinctions, that is how we got here today the important factor here is we don't have particularly good records of extinctions before gloabl warming (apart from famous groups like dodo's, tasmanian tigers and the fossil record) so if a beetle species is really extinct every 30 seconds who is to say it hasn't always been like that? I'm not saying extinction is good but there is only so much space, we take up a lot so the "fittest" (I hate that term) survive in the gaps we leave. if the conditions are bad because of us, so they are. Yes many creatures are dyiing but it doesn't stop us throwing down roachpowder, swatting mosquitos and laying rat poison does it, no because these are creatures that Thrive on humans, we have a soft spot for the underdog, the loser, if a species is due for extinction who are we to fight to save it (this sounds harsh but I don't mean species we ourselves have actively attempted to destroy although it would still technically count as evolution, competition for space etc)
My point here isn't to argue biology - Although I happily will go toe to toe I have a very good backgound stone I just haven't been focusing on it. I'm pointing out that the space used by us is what is causing a large problem, yes our pollutants can ruin environments, but if we weren't everywhere then (land based creatures at least) would have places to move to, to adapt to and to fill. the seas are different but then they must have been warmer before now because there have been points with NO ice at the poles. our chemicals and nets ARE bad. I Also Agree oil use will have to stop, what I think is wrong is banning it.
How many eco-warriors out there are willing to forego children? I want an honest answer. if what freaky hair said is true and the planet can only support 8 billion - that's 1 more generation. My argument will always be for population control otherwise we will strip all resiources from animals for US. We're all for the same thing, but via different methods.
Stone it's not all taxonomic and even if it is, if species are really only changing taxonomically is that not proof of diversification? these "new" species are in fact a single species diversifying.
Quite a few are True new species (mostly because we are getting deeper in oceans so on 1 trip you can find 20 entirely new species of fish or crustacean.) they found a new stripey rabbit (in Australia I believe actually), a new type of antelope but I agree there are changes taxonomy (now 2 species of african elephant, the ribust and gracile forms no longer thought to be a subspecies). True the number of organisms isn't increasing (could you imagine if you had to count all the animals) we're taking up all the space
so there is no room / habitats for them to exploit.All this is only proof of the immutability of species. You will always have extinctions, that is how we got here today the important factor here is we don't have particularly good records of extinctions before gloabl warming (apart from famous groups like dodo's, tasmanian tigers and the fossil record) so if a beetle species is really extinct every 30 seconds who is to say it hasn't always been like that? I'm not saying extinction is good but there is only so much space, we take up a lot so the "fittest" (I hate that term) survive in the gaps we leave. if the conditions are bad because of us, so they are. Yes many creatures are dyiing but it doesn't stop us throwing down roachpowder, swatting mosquitos and laying rat poison does it, no because these are creatures that Thrive on humans, we have a soft spot for the underdog, the loser, if a species is due for extinction who are we to fight to save it (this sounds harsh but I don't mean species we ourselves have actively attempted to destroy although it would still technically count as evolution, competition for space etc)
My point here isn't to argue biology - Although I happily will go toe to toe I have a very good backgound stone I just haven't been focusing on it. I'm pointing out that the space used by us is what is causing a large problem, yes our pollutants can ruin environments, but if we weren't everywhere then (land based creatures at least) would have places to move to, to adapt to and to fill. the seas are different but then they must have been warmer before now because there have been points with NO ice at the poles. our chemicals and nets ARE bad. I Also Agree oil use will have to stop, what I think is wrong is banning it.
How many eco-warriors out there are willing to forego children? I want an honest answer. if what freaky hair said is true and the planet can only support 8 billion - that's 1 more generation. My argument will always be for population control otherwise we will strip all resiources from animals for US. We're all for the same thing, but via different methods.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
stranger
18 posts
18 posts
Posted:
Originally Posted By: MynciStone it's not all taxonomic and even if it is, if species are really only changing taxonomically is that not proof of diversification? these "new" species are in fact a single species diversifying.
Quite a few are True new species (mostly because we are getting deeper in oceans so on 1 trip you can find 20 entirely new species of fish or crustacean.) they found a new stripey rabbit (in Australia I believe actually), a new type of antelope but I agree there are changes taxonomy (now 2 species of african elephant, the ribust and gracile forms no longer thought to be a subspecies). True the number of organisms isn't increasing (could you imagine if you had to count all the animals) we're taking up all the space so there is no room / habitats for them to exploit.
All this is only proof of the immutability of species. You will always have extinctions, that is how we got here today the important factor here is we don't have particularly good records of extinctions before gloabl warming (apart from famous groups like dodo's, tasmanian tigers and the fossil record) so if a beetle species is really extinct every 30 seconds who is to say it hasn't always been like that? I'm not saying extinction is good but there is only so much space, we take up a lot so the "fittest" (I hate that term) survive in the gaps we leave. if the conditions are bad because of us, so they are. Yes many creatures are dyiing but it doesn't stop us throwing down roachpowder, swatting mosquitos and laying rat poison does it, no because these are creatures that Thrive on humans, we have a soft spot for the underdog, the loser, if a species is due for extinction who are we to fight to save it (this sounds harsh but I don't mean species we ourselves have actively attempted to destroy although it would still technically count as evolution, competition for space etc)
My point here isn't to argue biology - Although I happily will go toe to toe I have a very good backgound stone I just haven't been focusing on it. I'm pointing out that the space used by us is what is causing a large problem, yes our pollutants can ruin environments, but if we weren't everywhere then (land based creatures at least) would have places to move to, to adapt to and to fill. the seas are different but then they must have been warmer before now because there have been points with NO ice at the poles. our chemicals and nets ARE bad. I Also Agree oil use will have to stop, what I think is wrong is banning it.
How many eco-warriors out there are willing to forego children? I want an honest answer. if what freaky hair said is true and the planet can only support 8 billion - that's 1 more generation. My argument will always be for population control otherwise we will strip all resiources from animals for US. We're all for the same thing, but via different methods.
I'm not wiling to forego chidren to be honest, deffinately not. I see what you mean but the ammount of species dying everyday does seem a bit unnatural?
The oceans are ruined though, for the current species, due to us.( https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8021459.stm
). I just don't think that we can justify letting out the ammount of dangerous gasses that we are, as well as destroying aciet habitats for some of the worlds most amazing animals. Either way, I can talk the talk but I really don't walk the walk, as any enviromentalist on the internet, I am a hypocrite lol. I just don't think that individuals alone can reduce carbon emmisions by eough to justify living a completely different life to the way that others I love and care around me do. I think that climate change is going to happen, we do need a population cull.
I just think the main problem with our society is everybody viewing resources as continual, they assume that they will always be able to get rice and eggs from the local tesco or that they can always pay the money to pump their car full. I think its the unsustainability and selfish way that our society views materials that is the real problem, because at the end of the day, we can't completely stop global warming, but we can stop ivig so sel destructively.
Originally Posted By: MynciStone it's not all taxonomic and even if it is, if species are really only changing taxonomically is that not proof of diversification? these "new" species are in fact a single species diversifying.
Quite a few are True new species (mostly because we are getting deeper in oceans so on 1 trip you can find 20 entirely new species of fish or crustacean.) they found a new stripey rabbit (in Australia I believe actually), a new type of antelope but I agree there are changes taxonomy (now 2 species of african elephant, the ribust and gracile forms no longer thought to be a subspecies). True the number of organisms isn't increasing (could you imagine if you had to count all the animals) we're taking up all the space
so there is no room / habitats for them to exploit.All this is only proof of the immutability of species. You will always have extinctions, that is how we got here today the important factor here is we don't have particularly good records of extinctions before gloabl warming (apart from famous groups like dodo's, tasmanian tigers and the fossil record) so if a beetle species is really extinct every 30 seconds who is to say it hasn't always been like that? I'm not saying extinction is good but there is only so much space, we take up a lot so the "fittest" (I hate that term) survive in the gaps we leave. if the conditions are bad because of us, so they are. Yes many creatures are dyiing but it doesn't stop us throwing down roachpowder, swatting mosquitos and laying rat poison does it, no because these are creatures that Thrive on humans, we have a soft spot for the underdog, the loser, if a species is due for extinction who are we to fight to save it (this sounds harsh but I don't mean species we ourselves have actively attempted to destroy although it would still technically count as evolution, competition for space etc)
My point here isn't to argue biology - Although I happily will go toe to toe I have a very good backgound stone I just haven't been focusing on it. I'm pointing out that the space used by us is what is causing a large problem, yes our pollutants can ruin environments, but if we weren't everywhere then (land based creatures at least) would have places to move to, to adapt to and to fill. the seas are different but then they must have been warmer before now because there have been points with NO ice at the poles. our chemicals and nets ARE bad. I Also Agree oil use will have to stop, what I think is wrong is banning it.
How many eco-warriors out there are willing to forego children? I want an honest answer. if what freaky hair said is true and the planet can only support 8 billion - that's 1 more generation. My argument will always be for population control otherwise we will strip all resiources from animals for US. We're all for the same thing, but via different methods.
I'm not wiling to forego chidren to be honest, deffinately not. I see what you mean but the ammount of species dying everyday does seem a bit unnatural?
The oceans are ruined though, for the current species, due to us.( https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8021459.stm
). I just don't think that we can justify letting out the ammount of dangerous gasses that we are, as well as destroying aciet habitats for some of the worlds most amazing animals. Either way, I can talk the talk but I really don't walk the walk, as any enviromentalist on the internet, I am a hypocrite lol. I just don't think that individuals alone can reduce carbon emmisions by eough to justify living a completely different life to the way that others I love and care around me do. I think that climate change is going to happen, we do need a population cull.
I just think the main problem with our society is everybody viewing resources as continual, they assume that they will always be able to get rice and eggs from the local tesco or that they can always pay the money to pump their car full. I think its the unsustainability and selfish way that our society views materials that is the real problem, because at the end of the day, we can't completely stop global warming, but we can stop ivig so sel destructively.
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
The problem with humans is we no longer have natural predators. Yes things will kill us, but there are not enough predators to control population growth, and also we can fight back pretty well. The only thing left that can save the planet (not humankind) is natural disasters and disease, and we're getting pretty good at fighting disease so (I seem so callous when I write things like this) those not fit to survive often do. (I can't complain I'm one)
Tom your language is stil awful even standing up for what you believe in "by democratic means" is the same. try standing up for "what is moral and right" (yes I agree there is no physical similarity between the 2)
UN studiy on population, development and environment please note the map showing CO2 emissions matching urban sprawl. The difference between population and emissions is descibed by level of development. even keeping population the same the further development of india and china would push emission of the chart, so do you stop nations developing to a better standard of life or do you reduce population to allow development to maintain / reduce emissions?
https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_PopDevt/Urban_2007.pdf
edit
UN report - https://www.popline.org/docs/0944/071276.html
Oh well looks like we have 16 years to sort things out unless we reduce global fertility to 3.2 births/woman on average by the year 2000.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
somebody better tell the developing countries. (although I think that is balanced by child mortality
)
Response regarding global warming bad for habitats - example proof of human development being a major factor creatures cannot move with changing climate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224230711.htm
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242912608)
The problem with humans is we no longer have natural predators. Yes things will kill us, but there are not enough predators to control population growth, and also we can fight back pretty well. The only thing left that can save the planet (not humankind) is natural disasters and disease, and we're getting pretty good at fighting disease so (I seem so callous when I write things like this) those not fit to survive often do. (I can't complain I'm one)
Tom your language is stil awful
even standing up for what you believe in "by democratic means" is the same. try standing up for "what is moral and right" (yes I agree there is no physical similarity between the 2)UN studiy on population, development and environment please note the map showing CO2 emissions matching urban sprawl. The difference between population and emissions is descibed by level of development. even keeping population the same the further development of india and china would push emission of the chart, so do you stop nations developing to a better standard of life or do you reduce population to allow development to maintain / reduce emissions?
https://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2007_PopDevt/Urban_2007.pdf
edit
UN report - https://www.popline.org/docs/0944/071276.html
Oh well looks like we have 16 years to sort things out unless we reduce global fertility to 3.2 births/woman on average by the year 2000.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
somebody better tell the developing countries. (although I think that is balanced by child mortality
)Response regarding global warming bad for habitats - example proof of human development being a major factor creatures cannot move with changing climate.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224230711.htm
EDITED_BY: Mynci (1242912608)
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
journeyman
77 posts
Location: Anglesey, Wales, UK soon to be Lincoln, England (s...
77 posts
Location: Anglesey, Wales, UK soon to be Lincoln, England (s...
Posted:
This is doing my head in now, we cant build more Coal power stations as they are dirty and have all that nasty Co2 stuff,
WE cant build nuclear reactors because they are dirty and have all that radiation stuff and could be used to make bombs and stuff.
What do you propose we do,
Wind farms do not produce enough power, to satisfy the requirements.
Solar reactors, good idea, but in some countries really not feasible.
Wouldnt it be a better idea for the governments of this lovely little planet of ours to say to the Scientists of this world, we will give you this big bucket of money and you create something that is clean, is renewable and can satisfy our requirements, that can be suplied cheaply.
But they wont do that will they?
Ask yourself why?
The answer comes down to one thing doesnt it?
OIL it is profitable, yes it wont last forever, but does that really matter to someone who isnt going to be alive to see it run out, if they can profit from it now.
So no dont ban the oil trade, ban the profiteering of the oil trade (if you can). Research is the best way out of the hole we have collectively dug ourselves into.
I dont believe that we have created global warming, the earth warms and cools in cycles, I do however believe we have exacerbated this particular warming cycle.
This is doing my head in now, we cant build more Coal power stations as they are dirty and have all that nasty Co2 stuff,
WE cant build nuclear reactors because they are dirty and have all that radiation stuff and could be used to make bombs and stuff.
What do you propose we do,
Wind farms do not produce enough power, to satisfy the requirements.
Solar reactors, good idea, but in some countries really not feasible.
Wouldnt it be a better idea for the governments of this lovely little planet of ours to say to the Scientists of this world, we will give you this big bucket of money and you create something that is clean, is renewable and can satisfy our requirements, that can be suplied cheaply.
But they wont do that will they?
Ask yourself why?
The answer comes down to one thing doesnt it?
OIL it is profitable, yes it wont last forever, but does that really matter to someone who isnt going to be alive to see it run out, if they can profit from it now.
So no dont ban the oil trade, ban the profiteering of the oil trade (if you can). Research is the best way out of the hole we have collectively dug ourselves into.
I dont believe that we have created global warming, the earth warms and cools in cycles, I do however believe we have exacerbated this particular warming cycle.
From Within Chaos Comes Order
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Mynci, as you say the number of organisms isn't increasing. As to population control, it’s also about distribution of resources. At the moment, it seems like 20 percent of the population consumes 80 percent of the resources and creates 80 percent of the green house gas emissions So, perhaps we should be trying to ban greed.
Mynci, as you say the number of organisms isn't increasing. As to population control, it’s also about distribution of resources. At the moment, it seems like 20 percent of the population consumes 80 percent of the resources and creates 80 percent of the green house gas emissions So, perhaps we should be trying to ban greed.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Macaque of all trades
8,738 posts
Location: wombling free..., United Kingdom
Posted:
Oh I agree, however I honestly do not think there is enough time for developing countries to catch up technologically before either population or lack of oil cause serious problems.
Fusion power would be fantastic if it could be stablised and maintained but it wouldn't be enough. We have the technology now for hydrogen fuel cars I believe Honda have 1 in full working order in Los angeles where there are the only hydrogen pumps.
The only problem I see is that the "Greedy" countries with high CO2 output are the only nations I see as being developed enough to see the end to oil. there will be LOTS more oil burned in research of cleaner fuels.
what would you choose? to ban the Greed and cut off the chance of clean energy OR to cut off the developing world's supply so there is enough oil for developing nations to develop clean energy?
I know in reality it doesn't work like that. but the world isn't fair and it isn't balanced. That is why 20% create the 80% of emissions. Also bare in mind that most manufacturing is done in the poorer countries and the goods are then shipped to the "greedy". the carbon footprint of shipping goods into a country is immense. the UK cannot survive now without importing everything, food, clothing, electronics, car parts absolutely everything is imported except a little meat and a few food products due to quotas. We only really export scrap metal and waste paper for reuse / recycling. that carbon footprint (approx 1000 gallons of fuel oil per hour for a container ship and there are 1000's on the sea) is given to the importing country NOT the exporter even though it is the exporter getting paid for the goods and providing the service.
It's very hard to strike a balance. the greedy are the skillful and the ones who could save us, the emissions the price of success? maybe.
Oh I agree, however I honestly do not think there is enough time for developing countries to catch up technologically before either population or lack of oil cause serious problems.
Fusion power would be fantastic if it could be stablised and maintained but it wouldn't be enough. We have the technology now for hydrogen fuel cars I believe Honda have 1 in full working order in Los angeles where there are the only hydrogen pumps.
The only problem I see is that the "Greedy" countries with high CO2 output are the only nations I see as being developed enough to see the end to oil. there will be LOTS more oil burned in research of cleaner fuels.
what would you choose? to ban the Greed and cut off the chance of clean energy OR to cut off the developing world's supply so there is enough oil for developing nations to develop clean energy?
I know in reality it doesn't work like that. but the world isn't fair and it isn't balanced. That is why 20% create the 80% of emissions. Also bare in mind that most manufacturing is done in the poorer countries and the goods are then shipped to the "greedy". the carbon footprint of shipping goods into a country is immense. the UK cannot survive now without importing everything, food, clothing, electronics, car parts absolutely everything is imported except a little meat and a few food products due to quotas. We only really export scrap metal and waste paper for reuse / recycling. that carbon footprint (approx 1000 gallons of fuel oil per hour for a container ship and there are 1000's on the sea) is given to the importing country NOT the exporter even though it is the exporter getting paid for the goods and providing the service.
It's very hard to strike a balance. the greedy are the skillful and the ones who could save us, the emissions the price of success? maybe.
A couple of balls short of a full cascade... or maybe a few cards short of a deck... we'll see how this all fans out.
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com