Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the whole environment scare like a modern Armageddon

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    The Ozone Layer issues was solved, well done, fair play to all involved.

    The problem with this current issue is that its long term and that results are unmeasurable. Statisitics are vague, innacurate and easily manipulated.

    Now to the important issue, if Taxes are introduced they will NEVER be withdrawn. Even if the "results" are positive, these taxes will be forever. The Ozone Layer was visible with infrared and we could see the results. This one is different.

    Then we'll also have the likes of Plastic Taxes. Oh there's too much plastic in the sea, we need to do more. How much is too much? It's a vague problem and taxes will again remain forever.

    If consumption is a problem then taxes is a solution. If you haven't the money to fly on a foreign holiday then that's a good thing.

    Folk don't seem to realise that you can't have it all


  • Options
    #93
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    97 percent of scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

    Well they did cause the problems, they should at least look for someone else to blame before posing any real solutions.


  • Options
    #94
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    97 percent of scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

    And even if it wasn't, our reining in will reduce whatever else is causing the warming.


  • Options
    #95
    weldoninhio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Thelonious Monk wrote: »
    We have nothing to do with species extinction and the continuing mass destruction of natural habitats? Or plastic in the oceans? Or filthy air in our cities?

    All environmental issues, not climate change issues. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #96
    Hal3000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 818 ✭✭✭Hal3000


    Think whatever you want about emissions - planet heating up - climate change etc. One thing that is very real is the monumental amount of plastics in our environment. Go down to your local beach and have a close look at the coastlines - rocks area. They’re completely polluted with micro plastics. The eyes don’t lie and no amount of spin - denying can say otherwise. The proof is right in front of us all. No science needed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,766 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    We're living at the very start of the technology age, the very start. To worry about climate change is like people in the 50's worrying about lack of smartphones.. I'm sure the people of the future will live in a emission free world.


  • Options
    #98
    dvdman1
    Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    Climate action isnt all about taxes like some have suggested..its about making better choices...government poilcy to not build that coal plant and do renewables...incentives hybrid and electric cars.
    Once the choices are there for the everyday person we should act


  • Options
    #99
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    Can we feed 10 billion people by 2050? To do so experts note farms must be operating at 100% and oceans will be decimated. But in doing so won’t it destroy our ecosystem? Isn’t our biggest problem the growing population? And how do you fix that... Global war?

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #100
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,065 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    We're living at the very start of the technology age, the very start. To worry about climate change is like people in the 50's worrying about lack of smartphones.. I'm sure the people of the future will live in a emission free world.

    Living in oceanfront property in Toronto? The people of the future might not be there. Droughts/wildfires/super-hurricanes/tornados/.... They'll be living emission free insofar as there will be way fewer humans in a smaller area, living hotter lives.


  • Options
    #101
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can we feed 10 billion people by 2050? To do so experts note farms must be operating at 100% and oceans will be decimated. But in doing so won’t it destroy our ecosystem? Isn’t our biggest problem the growing population? And how do you fix that... Global war?

    Hawking? I read that some time back, didn't paint a pretty picture.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    purplesnack
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭purplesnack


    lola85 wrote: »
    Exactly.

    All the technology will come soon and will work.

    Panicking now and taxing everyone is ridiculous.

    How will this bring back millions of extinct species?


  • Options
    #103
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    purplesnack wrote: »
    How will this bring back millions of extinct species?

    That's a possibility, genuinely.


  • Options
    #104
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    BorneTobyWilde wrote: »
    We're living at the very start of the technology age, the very start. To worry about climate change is like people in the 50's worrying about lack of smartphones.. I'm sure the people of the future will live in a emission free world.


    How does one decide in which part of an age they are living?

    It seems that what you are doing is expressing confidence that techology (200 years of which has caused the current problem) will solve the problem.

    Which seems like a view based on something worse than blind faith.


  • Options
    #105
    purplesnack
    Registered Users Posts: 61 ✭✭purplesnack


    bladespin wrote: »
    That's a possibility, genuinely.

    Even if it is, they'd only be destroyed again. As a species, we have absolutely zero respect or compassion for anything else


  • Options
    #106
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can we feed 10 billion people by 2050? To do so experts note farms must be operating at 100% and oceans will be decimated. But in doing so won’t it destroy our ecosystem? Isn’t our biggest problem the growing population? And how do you fix that... Global war?

    Most of that 7 billion live on a tiny amount of money compared to us. They don't consume, they aren't obsese, they don't live as long.

    The problem is the relative few who hoover up the resources of the world. I mean cattle based protein is a 100 or 1000 fold or some such more resource intensive than vegetable based protein.

    Who's eating all the cattle morning noon and night


    There is absolutely no problem feeding 10 billion people. Feedig 10 billion western diets is another matter.

    But if there must be depopulation, then the west is the best population to rid the planet of. But I'm not sure thats what you meant ☺


  • Options
    #107
    dvdman1
    Registered Users Posts: 512 ✭✭✭dvdman1


    notobtuse wrote: »
    Can we feed 10 billion people by 2050? To do so experts note farms must be operating at 100% and oceans will be decimated. But in doing so won’t it destroy our ecosystem? Isn’t our biggest problem the growing population? And how do you fix that... Global war?

    one word "EDUCATION"


  • Options
    #108
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    antiskeptic wrote: »


    There is absolutely no problem feeding 10 billion people. Feedig 10 billion western diets is another matter.

    There really is, western diet or not, population growth is unsustainable at it's current rate (any rate really).


  • Options
    #109
    vriesmays
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    97 percent of scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

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


  • Options
    #110
    secondrowgal
    Registered Users Posts: 1,056 ✭✭✭secondrowgal


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Jobstown!

    When??

    At the weekend. Just disgusting

    https://twitter.com/Rubberbandits/status/1176153822047154176


  • Options
    #111
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    bladespin wrote: »
    There really is, western diet or not, population growth is unsustainable at it's current rate (any rate really).

    Huge quantities of food are wasted: -

    the complexity and variety of food available in the West leads to pre consumer waste (eg stuff going out of date before it be sold.

    All in all about 33% of food in the west is wasted at some point.

    And the west is overfed - which is another kind of waste

    Its as bad in developing countries - consumer waste is negligable but poor technology/tecniques result in 33% of food production going to waste.

    The problem isn't population. The problem is the west wastes food. And the west isn't invested in helping underdeveloped countries reduce waste.

    So, if 33% of the worlds food is being avoidably wasted (sure, there is always waste) that means 66% of the food currently feeds the world at current standards.

    Population obviously isn't issue - we could increase the population by 50% if we hadn't waste.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,421 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    dvdman1 wrote: »
    97 percent of scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

    And even if it wasn't, our reining in will reduce whatever else is causing the warming.

    What?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Options
    #113
    notobtuse
    Registered Users Posts: 5,424 ✭✭✭notobtuse


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Most of that 7 billion live on a tiny amount of money compared to us. They don't consume, they aren't obsese, they don't live as long.

    The problem is the relative few who hoover up the resources of the world. I mean cattle based protein is a 100 or 1000 fold or some such more resource intensive than vegetable based protein.

    Who's eating all the cattle morning noon and night


    There is absolutely no problem feeding 10 billion people. Feedig 10 billion western diets is another matter.

    But if there must be depopulation, then the west is the best population to rid the planet of. But I'm not sure thats what you meant ☺
    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"). 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.

    Survival of the fittest tends to disagree with your scenario. 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.

    You can ignorantly accuse me of "whataboutism," but what it really is involves identifying similar scenarios in order to see if it holds up when the shoe is on the other foot!



  • Options
    #114
    lola85
    Closed Accounts Posts: 667 ✭✭✭lola85


    dvdman1 wrote: »
    97 percent of scientists agree that Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities

    No they don’t.

    That was debunked. 97% of scientists believe climate change is happening.

    That fact is true.


  • Options
    #115
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    i'm in favour of greener policies and a move away from fossil fuels etc

    however the comparisons with our current climate panic and doomsday cultism are inescapable. religious overtones abound.


  • Options
    #116
    vriesmays
    Registered Users Posts: 1,570 ✭✭✭vriesmays


    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.


  • Options
    #117
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #118
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    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.
    quick maffs


  • Options
    #119
    Mike9832
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,912 ✭✭✭Mike9832


    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.

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

    We should really panic :pac:


  • Options
    #120
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,555 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Quantum Erasure
    Registered Users Posts: 8,273 ✭✭✭Quantum Erasure


    lola85 wrote: »
    No they don’t.

    That was debunked. 97% of scientists believe climate change is happening.

    That fact is true.
    J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

    Quotation from page 6
    "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/#*


Advertisement