Is the whole environment scare like a modern Armageddon

Quantum Erasure

Mike9832 wrote: »

And it's warmed a whole 1c since 1750, yes 1c warmer in 269 years

We should really panic :pac:

few more degrees wouldn't do any harm, wha?

Mike9832

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Varadkar is now saying if we strike oil in Irish waters we are just going to leave it there...

Condescending Scandinavians selling oil to all us plebs and giving us lectures to drive electric cars like themselves, funded by the oil

Varadkar is a moron

suicide_circus

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Varadkar is now saying if we strike oil in Irish waters we are just going to leave it there...

until the next recession hits.

then we'll flog the drilling to the first bidder for a jar of magic beans.

Quantum Erasure

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Varadkar is now saying if we strike oil in Irish waters we are just going to leave it there...

keep it for a rainy day

vriesmays

Mike9832 wrote: »

And it's warmed a whole 1c since 1750, yes 1c warmer in 269 years

We should really panic :pac:

I'm panicking about the deluded and misguided camping in Dublin central next month and blocking traffic for a week.

Mike9832

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

few more degrees wouldn't do any harm, wha?

1c increase in 269 years, who knows if that 1750 figure is even accurate

Scientists correct themselves more than politicians

Suttree

Mike9832 wrote: »

1c increase in 269 years, who knows if that 1750 figure is even accurate

Scientists correct themselves more than politicians

I'd like to have a respectful as possible debate on this, so out of curiosity, since you're disagreeing with the overall scientific consensus on this, what's your own background/expertise on this subject?

Quantum Erasure

https://xkcd.com/1732/

[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's temperature has changed before.

nthclare

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Varadkar is now saying if we strike oil in Irish waters we are just going to leave it there...

lol he will in his ring

antiskeptic

notobtuse wrote: »

Easy? What are you smoking? Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land. It consumes 90% of all the fresh water used by humanity and generates 1/4 of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming (according to that 'settled science").

Need that be? Need we be overfed, need 1/3rd of the worlds food go to waste.

I wasn't saying the world would change its ways. I was saying the world was well capable of supporting its population and an even greater population. 2 different things.

The focus on population growth masks the underlying issue which assumes its fine for the current show to go on

And yet of the 7 billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to, or can’t afford, an adequate diet. There is no easy way to produce 30% more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, and cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds. Less meat and more plant base will help somewhat but it won’t be enough by a long shot. Plus, population will continue to rise.

Indeed. And it looks as if halting growth is going to as easy as changing our ways.

The western world figures it won't starve and that the food problem (as with climate change) is going to be someone elses problem (I mean, we can just crank up the airco).

My guess is less that there will be wars and more that affected and desparate folk will simply decide to move here.

Survival of the fittest tends to disagree with your scenario.

It wasn't my scenario - there isn't a snowballs chance in the artic of the west changing its ways in any timely fashion.

And good luck getting rid of people of the west. What would happen if the west stopped exporting food? Good luck getting rid of people of the west. Perhaps the west should stop feeding the rest of the world. Agriculture trade barriers don’t make a lot of sense, do they? But in reality as the world population grows a lot of of people who will be fed around the world will be fed by American innovation, creativity and hard work. Perhaps not the best idea to keep demonizing those in the west.

Or perhaps we need to develop a Soylent Green? Global food wars will be the greatest threat to the world within a century, I fear.

Mass emigration. The lesson that you can overwhelm a relatively fragile societal system is a lesson learned which can't like toothpaste, be put back into the tube.

notobtuse

antiskeptic wrote: »

Need that be? Need we be overfed, need 1/3rd of the worlds food go to waste.

I wasn't saying the world would change its ways. I was saying the world was well capable of supporting its population and an even greater population. 2 different things.

The focus on population growth masks the underlying issue which assumes its fine for the current show to go on



Indeed. And it looks as if halting growth is going to as easy as changing our ways.

The western world figures it won't starve and that the food problem (as with climate change) is going to be someone elses problem (I mean, we can just crank up the airco).

My guess is less that there will be wars and more that affected and desparate folk will simply decide to move here.




It wasn't my scenario - there isn't a snowballs chance in the artic of the west changing its ways in any timely fashion.




Mass emigration. The lesson that you can overwhelm a relatively fragile societal system is a lesson learned which can't like toothpaste, be put back into the tube.

There are a number of things right now that involve US crop production and makes no sense to me. We don’t manage our waters well in the western states where much of the crops are grown. California, where much of the crops are produced was once mostly a desert. China is slapping tariffs on US agricultural products, yet they are a top importer of US agriculture, but cutting back because of the high costs. And Democrats are working to put farms out of business with huge taxes on the inheritance of farms after death. Many farms in the US are family businesses. They go from generation to generation, and the families grow up in the business. Farming isn’t something you can just pick up as it takes a lifetime to learn. If China wants to play games in the trade wars why are they hitting agriculture? And why are Democrats making it impossible because of taxes to pass a farm to another generation? If farms go out of business they get sold off and the land is used for other types of development. Who would be left who knows how to run a farm efficiently? And if farms go out of business in the US who will take up the slack for producing agriculture products? Putting farms out of business makes no sense if we are expected to feed growing populations. Yet that is what is happening.

SafeSurfer

antiskeptic wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

Easy? What are you smoking? Agriculture already uses almost half of the world’s vegetated land. It consumes 90% of all the fresh water used by humanity and generates 1/4 of the annual global emissions that are causing global warming (according to that 'settled science").

Need that be? Need we be overfed, need 1/3rd of the worlds food go to waste.

I wasn't saying the world would change its ways. I was saying the world was well capable of supporting its population and an even greater population. 2 different things.

The focus on population growth masks the underlying issue which assumes its fine for the current show to go on

And yet of the 7 billion people living today, 820 million are undernourished because they don’t have access to, or can’t afford, an adequate diet. There is no easy way to produce 30% more food on the same land area, stop deforestation, and cut carbon emissions for food production by two-thirds. Less meat and more plant base will help somewhat but it won’t be enough by a long shot. Plus, population will continue to rise.

Indeed. And it looks as if halting growth is going to as easy as changing our ways.

The western world figures it won't starve and that the food problem (as with climate change) is going to be someone elses problem (I mean, we can just crank up the airco).

My guess is less that there will be wars and more that affected and desparate folk will simply decide to move here.

Survival of the fittest tends to disagree with your scenario.

It wasn't my scenario - there isn't a snowballs chance in the artic of the west changing its ways in any timely fashion.

And good luck getting rid of people of the west. What would happen if the west stopped exporting food? Good luck getting rid of people of the west. Perhaps the west should stop feeding the rest of the world. Agriculture trade barriers don’t make a lot of sense, do they? But in reality as the world population grows a lot of of people who will be fed around the world will be fed by American innovation, creativity and hard work. Perhaps not the best idea to keep demonizing those in the west.

Or perhaps we need to develop a Soylent Green? Global food wars will be the greatest threat to the world within a century, I fear.

Mass emigration. The lesson that you can overwhelm a relatively fragile societal system is a lesson learned which can't like toothpaste, be put back into the tube.

https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Put-Toothpaste-Back-in-the-Tube/

circadian

Mike9832 wrote: »

And it's warmed a whole 1c since 1750, yes 1c warmer in 269 years

We should really panic :pac:

Is that right? I love this array of sources you've presented to solidify your point.

notobtuse

Scientists are warning of an unusually inactive sun period that might result in another little ice age in perhaps 15 years. If that happens will we be longing for some good ol’ global warming?

BarryD2

vriesmays wrote: »

I'm panicking about the deluded and misguided camping in Dublin central next month and blocking traffic for a week.

Don't think the Dublin public will put up with that. One thing to wring one's hands and talk about carbon taxes, another thing to be inconvenienced and/or have to look out at wind turbines off the Dublin coastline.

lola85

notobtuse wrote: »

Scientists are warning of an unusually inactive sun period that might result in another little ice age in perhaps 15 years. If that happens will we be longing for some good ol’ global warming?

We only listen to certain scientists around here.

Mike9832

circadian wrote: »

Is that right? I love this array of sources you've presented to solidify your point.

Suprisingly it is


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/09/07/exactly-how-much-has-the-earth-warmed-and-does-it-matter/amp/

Ulysses Gaze

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

So Varadkar is now saying if we strike oil in Irish waters we are just going to leave it there...

Varadkar will be out on his ear after the next election and won't be hanging around on the opposition bench.

The EU, UN or some Charity on a high 6 figure salary (replete with access to a private jet) awaits.

circadian

Mike9832 wrote: »

Suprisingly it is


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/09/07/exactly-how-much-has-the-earth-warmed-and-does-it-matter/amp/

"Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry."

Mike9832

circadian wrote: »

"Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry."

Other sources too

I prefer listen this one

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7495193/Greta-Thunberg-nearly-cries-calls-leaders-stealing-future.html

chasingpaper

vriesmays wrote: »

1 in 25 of our atmosphere is carbon.
1 in 5 of this carbon is man made.
About 0.008% of the atmosphere is produced by man made emissions. How does this affect the climate.

1 in 25 is 4%
1 in 5 is 20%
20% of 4% is 0.8% or 0.008

Probably a typo but it makes hell of a difference in figures like this!
Still not sure how or if it impacts climate though .

antiskeptic

notobtuse wrote: »

There are a number of things right now that involve US crop production and makes no sense to me. We don’t manage our waters well in the western states where much of the crops are grown. California, where much of the crops are produced was once mostly a desert. China is slapping tariffs on US agricultural products, yet they are a top importer of US agriculture, but cutting back because of the high costs. And Democrats are working to put farms out of business with huge taxes on the inheritance of farms after death. Many farms in the US are family businesses. They go from generation to generation, and the families grow up in the business. Farming isn’t something you can just pick up as it takes a lifetime to learn. If China wants to play games in the trade wars why are they hitting agriculture? And why are Democrats making it impossible because of taxes to pass a farm to another generation? If farms go out of business they get sold off and the land is used for other types of development. Who would be left who knows how to run a farm efficiently? And if farms go out of business in the US who will take up the slack for producing agriculture products? Putting farms out of business makes no sense if we are expected to feed growing populations. Yet that is what is happening.

That all presumes feeding growing populations (especially elsewhere) is considered a priority.

Why you would expect it to be a priority, I'm not quite sure. The priorities are more mundane things. Like getting reelected, combatting threats by competing powers or threats to resources (whether the war involved are winnable, sensibly run or otherwise).

There seems to be a presumption here that the common good (whether national or international) ought be the core motivation of those at the top of the heap.

Surely history tells us that this is utopian think. That the way things actually work is far dirtier, more complex and as a result, far less efficient than common sense and a sense of fair play might dictate?

There is nothing unusual in the the way the world bumbles along now - even a casual glance at history will tell you that its business more or less as usual that respect

The difference this time appears to be one of magnitude. It mattered less that the world could go as mad as it did as late as even WWII - there was only so much damage that could be wrought, even with industrialised war.

We are in far deeper water now: sophisticated weapons systems and a arms/perma war that is 80 years old, growing population, climate change, obscene (but now visible to all) wealth disparity, dwindling resources (whilst we're manacled to a system of perpetual growth which obscenity clambers over itself to buy the latest iphone - reminds one of Romans going outside to get sick so they could gorge on more), erosion of trust in authority - allied with narcisstic individualism #Itoo, propagandistic potential that would have Goebbels wet dreaming in his grave.

All plugged into by that age old propensity for man to be extremely cruel to man. Gone exponential.

I don't know why farmers in the US are being driven off the land. That it makes no sense is the very thing that makes sense.

-

All empires come to an end. Corruption, excess, laziness, fatness usually attaches to that end state. If you've ever seen Scarface..

Someone wrote earlier, implying we need not worry about climate change - that we were merely at the start of the technological age (implying that technology would see us well)

There's every reason to suppose the technological age, which started with the industrial revolution, has run its course. And that, rather being at the start of something, the very success of the tech age (starting with steam) has merely meant this latest empire, the 250-odd year old tech empire, burned relatively briefly, as well as brightly.

-

It has been proven untold times: there is nothin man won't stoop to if the way of life he enjoys is threatened.

MG42's mounted on the beachheads of Mediterranian Europe?

lola85

antiskeptic wrote: »

That all presumes feeding growing populations (especially elsewhere) is considered a priority.

Why you would expect it to be a priority, I'm not quite sure. The priorities are more mundane things. Like getting reelected, combatting threats by competing powers or threats to resources (whether the war involved are winnable, sensibly run or otherwise).

There seems to be a presumption here that the common good (whether national or international) ought be the core motivation of those at the top of the heap.

Surely history tells us that this is utopian think. That the way things actually work is far dirtier, more complex and as a result, far less efficient than common sense and a sense of fair play might dictate?

There is nothing unusual in the the way the world bumbles along now - even a casual glance at history will tell you that its business more or less as usual that respect

The difference this time appears to be one of magnitude. It mattered less that the world could go as mad as it did as late as even WWII - there was only so much damage that could be wrought, even with industrialised war.

We are in far deeper water now: sophisticated weapons systems and a arms/perma war that is 80 years old, growing population, climate change, obscene (but now visible to all) wealth disparity, dwindling resources (whilst we're manacled to a system of perpetual growth which obscenity clambers over itself to buy the latest iphone - reminds one of Romans going outside to get sick so they could gorge on more), erosion of trust in authority - allied with narcisstic individualism #Itoo, propagandistic potential that would have Goebbels wet dreaming in his grave.

All plugged into by that age old propensity for man to be extremely cruel to man. Gone exponential.

I don't know why farmers in the US are being driven off the land. That it makes no sense is the very thing that makes sense.

-

All empires come to an end. Corruption, excess, laziness, fatness usually attaches to that end state. If you've ever seen Scarface..

Someone wrote earlier, implying we need not worry about climate change - that we were merely at the start of the technological age (implying that technology would see us well)

There's every reason to suppose the technological age, which started with the industrial revolution, has run its course. And that, rather being at the start of something, the very success of the tech age (starting with steam) has merely meant this latest empire, the 250-odd year old tech empire, burned relatively briefly, as well as brightly.

-

It has been proven untold times: there is nothin man won't stoop to if the way of life he enjoys is threatened.

MG42's mounted on the beachheads of Mediterranian Europe?

Nice copy and paste.

antiskeptic

notobtuse wrote: »

Scientists are warning of an unusually inactive sun period that might result in another little ice age in perhaps 15 years. If that happens will we be longing for some good ol’ global warming?

Unfortunately science has shown itself capable of being commandeered by business interests. It ain't as trustworthy as it once was.

So when it starts ringing the alarm bells you might begin to suppose things are actually worse than stated.

Unless you suppose the biggest business has a vested interest in having us believe we need to stop consuming.

antiskeptic

lola85 wrote: »

Nice copy and paste.

Self praise is no praise .. went the ditty.

Or maybe you meant MG42's being copied and pasted to a different beach?

When letting them drown in the sea doesn't quell the problem then why not?

We're too civilized for that? In a world of Mexican rapists and Muslim terrorist hordes?

Cometh the unemployment, cometh the Kristalnacht. Or did you not see the prophecy at the end of The Big Short?

antiskeptic

BarryD2 wrote: »

Don't think the Dublin public will put up with that. One thing to wring one's hands and talk about carbon taxes, another thing to be inconvenienced and/or have to look out at wind turbines off the Dublin coastline.

Those on the Dublin coastline might secretly be hoping the wind turbines can work in reverse and do a King Canute.

They're selling €1mil apartments in Greystones built a stones throw and a couple of metres up from calm seas.

All that aluminium framed wall-to-wall glass capturing the view .. to be lashed out of it with salt water.

We shall build them from pyrite, we shall build them on flood plains, we shall not fit fire systems. Our stupidity will never surrender.

Quantum Erasure

they'll be praying for that flood wall in Clontarf, oh, they'll have a sea view all-right

dvdman1

vriesmays wrote: »

No they don't, they agree the climate is changing.

NO..... 97% agree climate change is mostly man made

Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% agree humans are responsible for climate change

nthclare

antiskeptic wrote: »

Unfortunately science has shown itself capable of being commandeered by business interests. It ain't as trustworthy as it once was.

So when it starts ringing the alarm bells you might begin to suppose things are actually worse than stated.

Unless you suppose the biggest business has a vested interest in having us believe we need to stop consuming.

This reminds me of when I was studying horticulture in the early 90's
We were told that roundup was so safe if you swallowed it you'd be ok.

No questions asked, take the manufacturers word for it, they'ed never lie...

antiskeptic

nthclare wrote: »

This reminds me of when I was studying horticulture in the early 90's
We were told that roundup was so safe if you swallowed it you'd be ok.

No questions asked, take the manufacturers word for it, they'ed never lie...

Told by who? The college educators it sounds like.

A situation where a public authority propagates a safety message licked off the back of multinational-influenced science.

You can see why safe vaccine campaigners are less than impressed with Harris' imprimatur.