What Do We Think About Climate Change

[fasteddy106]

and some more...........

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/im...conspiracy.pdf

[fasteddy106]

Guil, I know that sometimes politics seems to get in the way but to avoid it here is extremely difficult as AGW is about politics and social policy, not climate change or pollution as our friend Zed here has just admitted. Bravo to Zed for coming out of the closet on this. Perhaps he would be willing to start a thread on Zero Growth. That should be a fun one.

[Zed]

I was never in the closet ya silly bugger ... I never argued for AGW ????? At the most I said I'm remained open minded because I didn't really see it as an issue that matters given the back drop in energy and resources. That is a coming train wreck that will blow CO2 concerns out the back door IMO. That certainly does not mean I can make any sense of the AGW case!

Its zero growth or a devastating war... that's about the size of it eventually. How you make zero growth work with capitalism, which not perfect but its the best system we have devised, I don't know. Point remains its a real and quantifiable problem that is actually self evident even after a cursory inspection of the issues.

Chris Martenson has a presentation on it called the crash course.

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The pressures he talks of are also a lot closer that I think anyone realises, it probably a moot point, I don't think you will change any political or social attitude in time to change anything. I'm just treating it as a heads up as to why the next major war will occur and why is in effect inescapable. I can tell you I'm happy to be down south....there is nobody worth fighting down here, it will be a northern hemisphere event, which is fine by me! Anywhoo... like I said I see it as a path we will tread, not as an issue people will want to understand or do anything about in time ---> the exponential nature of it will see to it that we are caught out ---> so I couldn't be bothered to argue it on a thread.

CYA.

Norway population =~ one medium size American city.
Seabass? - trying to unscramble his brains after his last run-in with me or looking for his huevos after his wife told him to stop fighting on the internet...

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by Zed

??? At the most I said I'm remained open minded because.....

Oooooohhhh, open minded........ that's soooo terrible...... In this crowd....??

"The day before yesterday they called it "Global Warming", yesterday they called it "climate change". today they call it "energy security". He's a smart cookie.

[Knut Sand]

Originally Posted by mark775

Norway population =~ one medium size American city..

American city? Do you mean in comparison to the city/ houses or to the people who used to actually live there? I thought all the houses were put out for sale over there?
Personal bankrupcy filed in the US is approx 6000/ day...??
Citizens in jail??
Killings by guns??

You gotta admit that there's some room for improvement....

Oh, to sit on a pool of oil, live under the nuclear blanket provided by the US, have a populous not complicated by diversity and roam the seas raping fisheries! What a life! I'll give you this, your little berg is situated to come out of this mess well...

[Guillermo]

This is cute:
http://www.gapminder.org/
Knut and Zed: You can compare Norway against the USA and so solve or deepen your differences with data based arguments...

This video is interesting and somewhat related to this thread.
http://www.gapminder.org/videos/gapc...ast-10-energy/

Cheers

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Zed

Plants give up more methane than cows, believe it or not...

I'm in the zero growth club, we need to stop growth (that does not mean prosperity, we can have one without the other!) or we will have a go at destroying each other as push come to shove over resources. Just how you manage that, I don't know, but lets not turn the earth into Easter Island and lets not wreak economic havoc chasing C02 windmills.

No energy is unlimited.

This is actually a rather poorly understood problem, and people on both sides of the issue seem to misunderstand it equally. Of course the 'abundant earth' folks tend to disregard the issues involved with exponential growth and assume that technology will always keep up by ever reducing the individual 'footprint', as it has always done in the past.

Meanwhile, the 'zero growth' folks see all the 'excess' of the industrialized world, and wonder (understandably) where all the goods will come from when the underdeveloped world, with its exponentially growing population, decides it needs the same 'excesses'. So the 'zero growth' people have a secret agenda to keep the underdeveloped world just that-underdeveloped and dirt poor- so that they will never be able to afford all the 'excesses'.

The fact is, that one of the side effects of increased wealth is reduced population growth. Every industrialized nation is at or near zero population growth right now. Even the US would be, except for immigration. Right now, nearly 100% of US population growth comes from people moving here, NOT from people already here making more babies.

It's really just as Bjorn Lomborg says in his lectures: The best way we can help the world is to help the poorest people become richer. Then they will stop reproducing so rapidly and they will be able to afford to care about environmental issues. Meanwhile, we will get richer helping them get rich.

Jimbo

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

So the 'zero growth' people have a secret agenda to keep the underdeveloped world just that-underdeveloped and dirt poor- so that they will never be able to afford all the 'excesses'.

The fact is, that one of the side effects of increased wealth is reduced population growth. Every industrialized nation is at or near zero population growth right now. Even the US would be, expect for immigration. Right now, nearly 100% of US population growth comes from people moving here, NOT from people already here making more babies.

That is certainly not the way I look at it and I kinda resent you telling me what I think.

In effect solving the problem that endlessly growing population creates involves more than curtailing population growth (by some means, or effect) If we are to live at or near the holding capacity of this planet logic dictates that whatever we do needs to be sustainable and renewable. The holding capacity of the planet will also be determined by things such as the level of lifestyle we attempt to sustain.

I am not offering a solution, I don't know what it might be and I know I don't like the idea of overly controlling government, that has a proven track record of screwing up. I don't pretended to know what the carrying capacity of this planet is on a sustainable basis, I am sure someone will make a flawed model to reflect that as well. The Club of Rome say 2bill, Martenson says 10-12bill... what I do know however is that the growth curve that we are on drives us into what ever wall there is at speed, so if it is not considered and acted upon early then there is probably nothing to be done about control. Are we past that point... I dunno?

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

Oooooohhhh, open minded........ that's soooo terrible...... In this crowd....??

Don't be an R sol...

[Landlubber]

Zed,

No mate, we cannot be past that point (yet) as we are basically all still alive....but we do seem to be causing non sustainable living limits.

Fortunately nature will sort us out, 2012, with the planets all aligning, solar action will become radical, the earth will have devastating weather effects and many will be killed off, mother nature wins again.......

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Landlubber

No mate, we cannot be past that point (yet) as we are basically all still alive.....

Yeah we can.... there is a difference between burst capacity and sustainable capacity in all systems... think about it.

You really need to look at this issue to understand the speed with which this can unfold. I doubt most people will spend the short time that takes, which is why I think we fight in the end.

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Zed

That is certainly not the way I look at it and I kinda resent you telling me what I think.

If you read my post again you will notice the distinct absence of a particular word. That word is a name; your name in fact: ZED.

The reason that name is missing is because I was not referring to you personally. I certainly posses the requisite cojones to do so, if that was my desire. No one can tell you what you think, and who cares anyway?

The agenda of the collective of people referred to as 'zero growth' people is the question. They definitely do want to make sure that the underdeveloped countries stay that way. Their reasoning is as I stated above. I'm glad that you do not agree with that 'collective', but then I never thought you did. You are an individual person, not a 'collective'.

Jimbo