The World Under Climate Change

[Jimi H.]

I got your point, that's all well, but Apple speaking about the environment, dang, that's rich. The company that basically invented and perfected planned obsolescence? Fuck Apple..! Unless they stop that practice, I'll see this as pure greenwashing.

However, if it's really hip to be green again, that's definitly a good thing.

 

[pixelsmith]

Under a world of climate change we can expect cannibalism.
This is a serious discussion by Ted. Thankfully we have an overweight population.

 

[pixelsmith]

Climate Hustle Coming to Theaters on May 2, The Debate is Just Beginning

Review of climate hustle by a fellow Minnesotan For Global Warming Elmer Beauregard.

Link: Climate Hustle Coming to Theaters on May 2, The Debate is Just Beginning

By Elmer Beauregard

I had the privilege of going to D.C. to see the Premiere of Climate Hustle last week, all I can say is you must see this movie. Bring your friends, bring your enemies, bring your friend's enemies. Especially if your friends enemies believe in Global Warming this movie will change there minds.

Climate Hustle produced by CFACT not only shows that Global Warming is a hoax and a scam but what's great about Climate Hustle it shows that Global Warming is a joke. The audience was literally laughing at video clips of Al Gore and Prince Charles talking, it was almost as though they were stand up comedians. It's like in the story of the Emperors New Clothes when the boy points out that the Emperor is naked and the crowd starts laughing.

Marc Morano is the star of the film and does a good job making us laugh as well. At one point he reenacts Al Gore's famous elevator lift scene, sure it is a little cheesy but it totally worked in my opinion.

I think that humor is very important in a film like this, Michael Moore is an expert at it. If this movie was just charts and people talking the audience would fall asleep. Poking fun of the opposite side makes them look stupid (which isn't hard to do) plus it makes people let down their guard and they become more open minded.

Don't get me wrong this movie is not a comedy it also has a lot of good information. Marc interviews climate scientists who used to believe in Global Warming but don't anymore and how hard it's been on their careers especially Judith Curry, her story is quite compelling.

 

[pixelsmith]

Pixel, you are getting your information from a dodgy source.

COOLING-GATE: EASTERBROOK DEFENDS THE INDEFENSIBLE
by GARETH on MAY 25, 2010
Cooling-gate: Easterbrook defends the indefensible

I agree. update.. On Don Easterbrook’s Updated Projection

 

[Rahasyamaya]

Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thought i agree with you, i think your thought are incorrigible for peoples.

 

[pixelsmith]

It's not humans.

Text:
A new study produced by a University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscientist and Northwestern astrophysicist presents an explanation of the fluctuations of the earth's temperatures that global warming alarmists are going to make sure to bury: The cycle of changes in the climate over the millennia is a result of changes in the amount of solar radiation, in part caused by small changes in the orbits of Earth and Mars. [ 242 more words ]
Link:
http://climatechangedispatch.com/sc...e-and-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-human-beings/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

Global plastic production has increased dramatically in recent years. Between 2004 and 2014, the amount of plastic produced rose by 38 per cent, the report said.
In 2010, between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tons of plastic was washed into the seas and has since shown up in the stomachs of whales, plankton and other marine life.

Its not rocket science.
The population increases dramatically.
Plastic production increases dramatically.
The damage done to the environment increases dramatically.

The growing threat from plastic pollution to human health

Today humans are the new dinosaurs, the next species slated for extinction, warn 2,000 United Nations scientists. Soon. We’re also causing the extinction, even accelerating a new timetable. Signing our own death warrant. Not millions of years in the future, but this century. Thanks to our secret love of climate change. Yes, we’re all closet science deniers.



Here’s how Laughlin put it: “Humans have already triggered the sixth great period of species extinction in Earth’s history.” Get it? We’re to blame. We are the engine driving a new species extermination. The human race is in a suicidal run to self-destruction. We can’t blame it on the great American conspiracy of climate-science deniers, Big Oil, the Koch Bros, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Congress. It’s us.

World’s top problem is overpopulation, not climate

Every additional person needs food, water and energy, and produces more waste and pollution, so ratchets up our total impact on the planet, and ratchets down everyone else's share — the rich far more than the poor. By definition, total impact and consumption are worked out by measuring the average per person multiplied by the number of people. Thus all environmental (and many economic and social) problems are easier to solve with fewer people, and ultimately impossible with ever more.

TIME Special Report: The World at 7 Billion - TIME




To the editor: Your editorial highlights a critical issue that's frequently left out of the conversation: We can't effectively tackle climate change without looking at our runaway population growth and overconsumption. And it's not just the climate that's suffering from infinite growth on our finite planet. ("Why we need to address population growth's effects on global warming," Editorial, Jan. 25)

As human population has skyrocketed, so has the rate of wildlife extinction. Species are going extinct at 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate, largely driven by the demands for food, water, land and energy of a population that's doubled in the past 50 years. Our environmentally devastating hunger for meat and fossil fuels has worsened the problem. In short, we're crowding out the planet's biodiversity.


Unfortunately, conversations about population are often shut down before they even have a chance to begin. We can't continue to stay silent about the impact of our sheer numbers


Overpopulation is killing the world's biodiversity

 

[pixelsmith]

All you people complaining about overpopulation are still alive. Strange.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mike]

I had no say in my being born, but i do have a choice where reproduction is concerned

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/?_r=0

The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis

Meghan Hoskins is among a dozen people gathered in the spare office of an environmental group in Keene, N.H., earlier this year. They sit on folding chairs in a circle, the room humming with multiple conversations.

"If I had told my boyfriend at the time, 'I'm not ready to have children because I don't know what the climate's gonna be like in 50 years,' he wouldn't have understood. There's no way," says Hoskins, a 23-year-old whose red hair is twisted in a long braid.

This is one of 16 meetings over the past year and a half organized by Conceivable Future, a nonprofit founded on the notion that "the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis."

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?


The population explosion and climate change are linked.
I found it difficult to be up front about my choice because citing overpopulation and its environmental implications as a reason not to procreate has been a conversational third rail. After all, most cultures have traditions founded on some version of the Bible’s “go forth and multiply.”


But such exhortations came long before the world population hockeysticked in the 20th century from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion in 2000, before climate change began melting the glaciers that supply drinking water for billions of people. Today, sea levels are rising, threatening those who live in coastal cities and turning aquifers saline. Water insecurity caused in part by population pressure factors into armed conflicts, such as the war decimating Syria. We are pushing other species toward extinction at a rate 1,000 times higher than the pre-human rate, which is sure to affect us in ways we don’t yet understand.


Technology optimists are convinced that human ingenuity will save us, as the Green Revolution doubled crop yields. But while people are working to make human activities more sustainable, increasing population blunts their impact. Consider California’s efficiency requirements for appliances, which reduced their energy use to just 25 percent of those 40 years ago. Unfortunately California’s population nearly doubled during that time, so power consumption has barely budged.

Having kids is terrible for the environment, so I’m not having any

 

[pixelsmith]

I had no say in my being born, but i do have a choice where reproduction is concerned

Take, for example, a hypothetical American woman who switches to a more fuel-efficient car, drives less, recycles, installs more efficient light bulbs, and replaces her refrigerator and windows with energy-saving models. If she had two children, the researchers found, her carbon legacy would eventually rise to nearly 40 times what she had saved by those actions.

https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/07/having-children-brings-high-carbon-impact/?_r=0

The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis

Meghan Hoskins is among a dozen people gathered in the spare office of an environmental group in Keene, N.H., earlier this year. They sit on folding chairs in a circle, the room humming with multiple conversations.

"If I had told my boyfriend at the time, 'I'm not ready to have children because I don't know what the climate's gonna be like in 50 years,' he wouldn't have understood. There's no way," says Hoskins, a 23-year-old whose red hair is twisted in a long braid.

This is one of 16 meetings over the past year and a half organized by Conceivable Future, a nonprofit founded on the notion that "the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis."

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?


The population explosion and climate change are linked.
I found it difficult to be up front about my choice because citing overpopulation and its environmental implications as a reason not to procreate has been a conversational third rail. After all, most cultures have traditions founded on some version of the Bible’s “go forth and multiply.”


But such exhortations came long before the world population hockeysticked in the 20th century from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 6.1 billion in 2000, before climate change began melting the glaciers that supply drinking water for billions of people. Today, sea levels are rising, threatening those who live in coastal cities and turning aquifers saline. Water insecurity caused in part by population pressure factors into armed conflicts, such as the war decimating Syria. We are pushing other species toward extinction at a rate 1,000 times higher than the pre-human rate, which is sure to affect us in ways we don’t yet understand.


Technology optimists are convinced that human ingenuity will save us, as the Green Revolution doubled crop yields. But while people are working to make human activities more sustainable, increasing population blunts their impact. Consider California’s efficiency requirements for appliances, which reduced their energy use to just 25 percent of those 40 years ago. Unfortunately California’s population nearly doubled during that time, so power consumption has barely budged.

Having kids is terrible for the environment, so I’m not having any

Absurd posts. Have you considered saving the earth by feeding yourself to the worms?

 

[mike]

You didnt say why they were absurd, Just made the claim.
Your responses are typically like this, Noise with no substance.

If "Nah ah" is all you can bring to a debate then you lose by default.

The solution is not for me to kill myself, Now thats absurd.

Ive chosen not to have children and i use places like this to point out the root cause.

Human overpopulation is among the most pressing environmental issues, silently aggravating the forces behind global warming, environmental pollution, habitat loss, the sixth mass extinction, intensive farming practices and the consumption of finite natural resources, such as fresh water, arable land and fossil fuels, at speeds faster than their rate of regeneration. However, ecological issues are just the beginning...

Read more: Overpopulation Effects - Everything Connects

 

[mike]

This isnt speculation, we have a real world example in china. China is the "danger go back" sign we ignore as we speed towards the cliff.

China’s colossal industrial expansion of recent decades has depleted natural resources and polluted the skies and streams. China now consumes half the world’s coal supply. It leads all nations in emissions of carbon dioxide, the main contributor to global warming. Pollutants from its smokestacks cause acid rain in Seoul and Tokyo.

China’s experience shows how rising consumption and even modest rates of population growth magnify each other’s impact on the planet.

The country’s population of 1.3 billion is increasing, even with the controls on family size. What is driving the growth is that hundreds of millions of Chinese are still in their reproductive years. On such a huge base, even one or two children per couple adds large numbers — an effect known as population momentum.

The compounding forces of economic and population growth are a source of increasing concern to scientists. An international team of 1,300 researchers organized by the United Nations concluded that evidence points to “abrupt and potentially irreversible changes” in ecosystems in the next few decades, including mass extinctions and rapid climate change.

Within China, signs of environmental damage are pervasive: massive fish kills, lung-searing smog, denuded landscapes. They have stirred popular discontent and the beginnings of greater official concern for curbing pollution and preserving natural resources.

How this drama plays out is not merely China’s concern. Because of the nation’s sheer size, the rest of the world has an enormous stake in the outcome. [I can seldom see San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge, 12 miles away, anymore because of coal power plant and other pollution blowing in from China that muddies Bay Area skies — aha, right after I wrote this, I continued reading the article, and it says “almost 25% of the pollutants in the air above Los Angeles originated in China, the Environmental Protection Agency has found.”].

Overpopulation is destroying the planet — China for example

 

[mike]

“No question, the human population is the core of every single environmental issue that we have,” says Corey Bradshaw, an ecologist at the University of Adelaide in Australia. There are seven billion of us and counting. And though people are developing technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the Earth, a number of environmentalists believe that these fixes will never catch up to the population as long as it continues to grow. The only way to save the world is to stop making more (and more, and more, and more) humans.

Other experts are skeptical that the population can balance itself out. “That idea is so wrong in so many ways that I don’t know where to begin,” says Bradshaw. He says unregulated reproduction ignores an ecological principle called density feedback. “When you increase population in a finite space, you increase per capita aggression, and increase competition for resources. You see more conflict, more suffering, more pain, more death,” he says.

Bradshaw agrees that it’s important that societies that undergo demographic transition aren’t denied the comforts of post-industrialization. But he says that limitless population growth will make conditions much much worse, before they ever (if ever) get better. This is because any technology allowing the planet to support more people has always lagged behind the rate of population growth. “We can’t even feed the people on the planet now,” says Bradshaw, noting that there are nearly one billion hungry people on the planet

The Biggest Threat to the Earth? We Have Too Many Kids

 

[pixelsmith]

The planet is a self correcting system. It does not care we are here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Speak for yourself.

 

[pixelsmith]

The global warming scam is about over. You progressives will have to find some other way to transfer wealth to the elite.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gene Steinberg]

The actual transfer of wealth nowadays is the Republican healthcare bill. And their tax cut.

 

[pixelsmith]