Once again, the latest IPCC report makes exaggerated claims of a looming Armageddon, cherry-picking data to support their alarmist propaganda.
However, the NIPCC report also from climate scientists (although not on the UN payroll) does not agree with the official UN report.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/20 … e-science/
Oh yes, it’s not called “global warming” any more. Could that be because there is none?
http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2014/04/01/ … te-change/
And some other possible causes for “climate change” . . .
http://chemtrailsplanet.net/2013/11/05/ … r-weapons/
What do you think?
I think anybody who doesn't believe that man can affect climate is- well- delusional.
It has been recognised for many years that man affects local climate, why is it accepted locally but not globally?
Governments push their version of climate change because they have found it to be a great money spinner, TAX TAX TAX .
Mankind undoubtedly affects the climate so shouldn't we be looking at ways of reducing the effects by reducing population?
What? So those that don't care don't have to care?
Very generous of you.
Lost me then John.
Is your generosity quip aimed at my dislike of paying higher and higher taxes without seeing any significant results or is it about the undeniable fact that man affects the environment but we continue to produce more and more humans?
Your comment about reducing pollution by reducing population.
Where would you start? With those whose political views didn't align with yours?
No - we should start with anyone that has the letter "S" in their online name.
Did you assume I meant culling humans John?
I would start with education, educate people as to why its not a good idea to have 5, 10 or 20 children, educate people into the fact that a rise in population uses more natural resources and the use of those natural recourses contributes to climate change.
We are struggling now with only 7billion people how will we cope with 8billion by 2050 and this a conservative estimate.
Of course there will be those who point to the Peoples republic of China's one parent policy which has many critics and as many flaws and exceptions yet it still prevented an extra estimated 200million population growth between 1979-2009.
Who is we? The US? We don't even have an overpopulation problem. China does, but they have that under control for the most part. Maybe countries like India could use some education. Who's job is it to teach them?
We as Humans, or do you think its just other people not America, they don't cause any pollution do they?
I don't know what you're getting at.
I don't think overpopulation has a lot to directly do with pollution. American's aren't overpopulated, yet contribute hugely to pollution. An overpopulated country contributes too, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
So you don't think global climate change requires a global solution then?
I think climate change is natural. Why should we eff with mother nature? However, we should clean up the messes we've made. As human beings as a whole. But yes, global solution to cleanup of problems we've caused.
Its not just about pollution though is it? Its about the rate at which we are using natural resources in an ever expanding world and then pollution from the use of those resources affect the equilibrium of the eco system.
Do we have to fill every inch of the earth with humans before we realise there are to many?
No disagreements with you here at all.
Still, how do you force people not to procreate in other countries? I'm just saying, America isn't responsible for overpopulation. We could help educate other countries, hand out condoms,whatever. What do you suggest?
Yes, that's what we have to do. However if you want to Iran or Saudi Arabia and tell them to use condoms then be my guest.
I didn't say the task wasn't enormous, it is a problem to be solved.
Its a bit like asking the rest of the world to reduce its CO2 whilst producing a lot yourself.
That's not a good analogy, since, once again, the US isn't a contributor to overpopulation.
What do you suggest we do? Airdrop condoms over the third world?
The US is certainly a contributor to CO2 though isn't it? Second to China and with a 1/4 of the population it produces 16.4 tonnes per capita to 7.1 of China.
The problem needs to be tackled globally. I will concede that Countries will resist it with all there might, just as they do now.
I'm just saying, overpopulation and pollution are two different problems, that don't correlate to each other.
Both need to be addressed, but not as a unit.
With me, you're preaching to the choir. I just think the issues need to be addressed separately, or else it gets too confusing.
In GENERAL, the more people there are, the more pollution there will be. I agree to that.
It's a little difficult when we have religions telling us to populate the earth.
Slowing down or even stopping population growth would have little or no effect. You would actually have to drastically reduce population to have any meaningful effect.
Well then, that's too bad. Who would ever recommend culling humans? Only a deranged mind.
The population will most likely reduce due to war and simple starvation eventually. Sad.
I wouldn't call Silver deranged, misguided maybe, but not deranged.
The problem with war is that it would mostly weed out the lower users and leave the high users more or less intact. Starvation would only weed out the none users.
"I wouldn't call Silver deranged, misguided maybe, but not deranged."
I wasn't calling him deranged. I didn't think HE was calling for culling the human population. No one in particular on this forum, unless I missed something.
"The problem with war is that it would mostly weed out the lower users and leave the high users more or less intact. Starvation would only weed out the none users."
Lower users? What are those? Is that like "useless eaters" or something?
He might not have thought that but that was the only conclusion to draw.. As I said slowing down or even stopping population growth would have little or no effect.
Lower users. The people who don't run big motors and spend loads of money heating their homes,
Ok, that makes sense. A lower carbon footprint, things like that.
So John you don't think population control could stabilise or reduce the earths population then? And you don't think reducing population would help?
There will be 90million extra mouths to feed this year, but you don't think that will have any effect on the resources of the planet.
According to the most recent United Nations estimates, the human population of the world is expected to reach 8 billion people in the spring of 2024.
No I didn't say that population control couldn't stabilise or reduce population.
I said that doing so would have little or no effect on man's impact on the planet.
Mankind is spreading its destruction around the planet at a tremendous rate, here in the first world we can see the effects from consumerism but no one it seems is prepared to state the fact that in second and third world they are cutting down rain forests for living space (not just because someone wants a mahogany table) and that the third world is advancing quickly towards a consumer led economies, do you really think that another billion people will have no affect on the planet at all?
Population control is a uncomfortable subject, it would be almost impossible to get every nation on earth to agree to and as another poster said it would go against the teachings of the religiously insane.
So in conclusion I don't think it will ever happen, we will hurtle head long into the destruction and devastation until billions die and I bet we will still be blaming it on us wanting a new Iphone.
Eventually, you'll begin to notice that people just don't care, unfortunately.
I don't think its because people don't care I think its because people cant trust the reports because governments have to much say in the matter.
The recent report was subject to a sexing up campaign by various governments in a secret meeting that lasted for hours before releasing a document that had no reflection to the original one. Governments (especially in the west) have a lot to lose if the reports do not reflect their energy and tax policies.
Secret meeting! Then how do you know about it? And therefore how do you know that the released document had no reflection on the original?
Maybe secret was a little too harsh, but did you know about it before it happened? Do you know where and when it happened?
It seems some of the scientists that worked on the original have released it because they were not happy with the meddling's of the governments involved.
From my experience of being an environmentalist artist and green home builder. The system is rigged, the only way from my history studies where things will change is when the the majority of people's unconscious agree there has been a great abuse happening immediately . Like a 100 million deaths in one area due to pollution caused.
As an environmentalist you will know that the spread of mankind and their settlements have caused huge problems with the environment. I don't think it will be long before there is a huge disaster along the lines you state, possibly along a fault line as in LA or on coastal flood planes such as in Bangladesh.
Major pollution disasters such as Bhopal should show us that the rewards for polluting are much greater than the consequences for doing it. Maybe the hanging of a few of the directors of Union Carbide and a few government officials would have made other company polluters think before they acted.
You may think I am a little harsh but the death of a few may stop the death of millions.
Maybe you are right John, stopping the commerce of the first world will starve the people of the third world.
That would certainly help regards population wouldn't it?
Global warming initiative actually cost governments money and reduce economic growth. So it would be a very strange hoax for them to push.
What seems funny to me is those that wish to overlook recent climactic changes as delusions of over zealous scientists to panic the population, readily accept the older science of archeology to determine frequency through the ages of it happening before. Are the two sciences at odds with each other? Is more in depth explanation the key? Then you have those that would blame it on politics as a tax raising scheme. I am old enough to remember distinct four season temperatures in the fifties and sixties and they were more pronounced. Now it seems we go from a medium temperature range in spring and fall straight to the harsh temperatures of summer and winter. Something is different but refusing to do something about it, whether unaffiliated studies or specific targeted theories, we are ignoring something right in our faces. I have an idea lets just talk about it and save ourselves the money and effort so nothing is done. Wait! That's what we are doing now.
Man what a brutal winter that was. Still got snow on my yard. Did you see that storm that hit the east coast in April?
I was a child in 1963 but I remember my father having to dig us out of the house and I live in England!
Over my lifetime there have been many good and bad winters, some with snowfall, rainfall and freezing temps and some with warm and sunny weather.
Indeed. The climate never changes. That's silly.
Chemtrailsplanet? Really? That's where you get your news?
Maybe you're being sarcastic, I'm not sure. I hope so.
Built 17 worlds record 30,000 tons or more snow playgrounds, over a course of 35 years. I know intimately global warming is very alarming, yet not all global warming on earth is created by man.
At first the alarmists coined the phrase "AGW" or Anthropogenic Global Warming - or "human caused global warming" in plain English.
Then, when the climate would not cooperate, they changed this to just "Global Warming" - harder to deny, but with the same connotations.
Then when the climate still would not cooperate, they changed this to "Climate Change" - even harder to deny but still with the same connotations. Now some are even saying that if you are a climate change denier, you should be put in prison.
How can anyone deny that the climate is changing? An example . ..
This morning, it was cloudy. This afternon the sun came out, and this evening it rained!. What do you call that? Yes, folks thats climate change.
The real issue is that, as more and more scientists and governments are now saying . . . the catastrophic predictions of the IPCC are ludicrous. The earth is actually cooling now, and even when it was warming a few years ago, that was NOT caused by human CO2 emissions. Period.
So all this nonsense about carbon taxes and carbon footprints is just baloney! There is a political agenda in play here . . . cant you see it?
There might be a political agenda, but that's besides the point. There is REAL climate change (and not the daily weather changes in your area, as you seem to equate with climate, which it is not) going on, whether it is cooling or heating doesn't matter. Changes are natural, and go in cycles. This is obvious. That's what ice ages are about. We've been through a Garden of Eden period of stability for a few thousand years,and that's ending. It will have major impact on the world, crops, weather etc. People need to realize that things change,and be prepared for it. Like not having an ifrastucture that relies on uninterrupted electric power through the type of grid system we currently have. That is too centralized, etc.
People need to remember that we are always nine missed meals away from chaos.
Ice has melted in the the Arctic in the pass 25 years to the scale of Alaska and Texus combined. I snowbsculpture international for 35 years, ten years ago loss 80% of the snow bussiness due to warm weather. Today stopped because palm tree and banana trees are growing in Vancouver BC.
Hard to believe that either normal palm OR banana trees could grow without considerable help in a location with an average low temperatures of 1 degree C for 3 months out of the year. That's a guarantee that many weeks each year will see sub freezing temperatures each night.
http://www.worldweatheronline.com/Vanco … ia/CA.aspx
Lived in Florida for a wail, it went down to freezing temperatures the odd time. The bananas and palms trees can handle it for a short time, the same in Vancouver, except some days they need to be covered.
You should see our ugliest gardens of cactus and succulents plants and visit many of the clubs in the big cities.
My grandkids will not believe me when I tell them, I made a living in the winter time at ice and snow sculpture.
What you are conveniently leaving out of the story is that both are very specialized plants, adapted to cold climates, and that they have been around for many, many decades. And that, particularly in the case of the banana, they require specialized care in Vancouver in spite of being cold climate adapted.
(You might want to research "windmill palms" a little)
by My Esoteric10 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
An independent weather forecaster who tells the truth - a rare commodity . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwyjsJJr … ded#at=164
by Holle Abee11 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
by sannyasinman6 years ago
Online news service promotes false climate change study http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … CMP=twt_fd
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.