Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Climate Emergency
Comments
-
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.cantersaddick said:
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.Stu_of_Kunming said:
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households3 -
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.cantersaddick said:
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.Stu_of_Kunming said:
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households5 -
Yes always good to ignore the stats that don't tell you what you want to hear. If you look at the data definitions and methodologies that come with the official stats it sets out exactly how this is calculated as well as the flaws and caveats of the measure. No measure is perfect but this is an internationally recognised one.Hex said:
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.cantersaddick said:
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.Stu_of_Kunming said:
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households
Of course taking a step back from your statement and applying some critical thinking we have to ask the question - why would a government choose to manipluate their own statistics to show they have significant failings in their own country on child poverty? Why would they make these worse than they needed to be? The stats are gonna get massive press attention. And the year before an election?8 -
Like most of the predictions there is a massive +/- years involved because frankly we don’t have a scooby about the rate of acceleration of warming. We really have no idea of what one significant scenario has on other areas of climate. It’s very educated guesses and I have no doubt some of the predictions will take much longer and others much quicker. As far as the Gulf Stream is concerned it’s a game changer for the UK. Predictions that our UK climate will be very close to a Scandinavian one. Huge impact as our housing stock will be totally inadequate to cope with that degree of cold. The other big worry is concerning the jet stream. Has a major impact on our weather systems and any changes to that caused by ? Will be disastrous. I have no doubt that the world in 50 years will be a very different place to the one we currently live in. I do fear that there will be significant conflict as populations move and there is a race to secure resources. I don’t think I’ll be around to witness this pessimistic scenario but that doesn’t give me much comfort.swordfish said:
I'm not sure what's to be gained from laughing at predictions made a while back for a time twenty five years from now. If there's one thing we've learnt in the last twenty five years, its that the forecasts made back then for where we are now underestimated the pace of climate change, but who finds that hilarious?Friend Or Defoe said:
The doomsday scenario you're painting would naturally lead to a population reduction.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
There is also huge amounts of the planet that people aren't living in if you want to prevent that from happening and to overcome resource levels you move to renewables.
The 2050 map is hilarious, massive headline MAP SHOWS UK AREAS UNDER WATER BY 2050. With a description of areas that could be. It's not the science organisation who are using scare tactics.
It doesn't have to be accurate does it, and it's not provable for a long time yet. The narrative is that sea levels are rising and there are going to be widespread population migrations as a consequence, some happening already.
I read somewhere that the Gulf stream could collapse as early as 2025, but if not, then before then end of the century. How's that for inaccuracy. Should we ignore it as scare mongering then, even though the threat is real?1 -
https://www.worldometers.info/Population not exactly tumbling down, is it?
200,000++ more each day.
of course population is the problem3 -
India population mid 80’s was 700 million Today its 1.3bn so of course we have a population problem globally The world used to use its natural resources by October each year now it’s March! Science can and will solve this of course but at what cost to ordinary people?1
-
This is the really scary part:
3 -
Sorry Charwill, I'm not quite following this bit.Charwill said:India population mid 80’s was 700 million Today its 1.3bn so of course we have a population problem globally The world used to use its natural resources by October each year now it’s March! Science can and will solve this of course but at what cost to ordinary people?0 -
Measure of sustainability? By end March depleting resources without replenishing them. Use of the term 'sustainability' is a problem when it misleads the public into thinking products are when they're not as the accreditation labels can be bought and are largely meaningless.Stig said:
Sorry Charwill, I'm not quite following this bit.Charwill said:India population mid 80’s was 700 million Today its 1.3bn so of course we have a population problem globally The world used to use its natural resources by October each year now it’s March! Science can and will solve this of course but at what cost to ordinary people?
The blue MSC mark on tinned fish is a prime example. They admit it would involve resources far beyond what they could ever deploy to police fishing practices, so it's not a guarantee of sustainability. If fish stocks are depleting, which I think they are, then the amount of fish being taken from the seas isn't sustainable. It's not rocket science. Sustainable my arse!
0 - Sponsored links:
-
It is absolutely about the nature of consumption, land use and so on. It is absolutely about human greed. When (not if) there's a giant famine/drought/flood in the next decade or so and millions die, all this 'it's just population' nonsense will be trotted out to justify the dead brown people. Shame but they kinda deserved it, they do breed like rats. Meanwhile corporate oligarchs will continue to swallow the planet whole4
-
The rich will not be immune from the effects of climate change and I think the penny is just dropping there. As we have recently seen in California and Spain changing weather effects all, Mel Gibson while joking on a chat show being a bit of a dick his mansion was burning. But I can see a time when the rich of the world will try and pull up the drawbridge on the poorer parts of the world, unless they have something of value or exploit.0
-
True, but it's getting harder to attribute the devastating effects of it that we're seeing more often on the news to unrelated factors. Scenes like those witnessed in LA do resonate with the general public.kigelia said:
Figures like this illustrate the issue climate change has with the general population.Stig said:This is the really sc hiary part:
They are just numbers. They are simply not meaningful to the vast majority of the population.
Unfortunately, it seems we need the natural disasters to make people take notice, but even if they do, the question remains how many will voluntarily make changes to their lifestyles to help ease the problem?0 -
Oh dear I had to click on this thread again!
People sling around the term that person A is a climate denier for not believing that we should all change to EVs and electric heating etc when in most cases they are just pointing out the impracticalities of doing so.
I've said before that global population is a huge problem and it will be disastrous for the World in the not too distant future. I'm gobsmacked that some people on here deny that this is an issue and prefer to try and force us all down the wind turbine route. There are many excellent reasons that we should be employing mixed renewable energy production, this includes fossil fuels BTW.
It's not racist to point out where the population explosion is happening, it's just factual. In my opinion the reasons for this are mostly due to poverty and religious extremists and wars. Nobody in the west seems interested in helping the poverty riven areas to become more affluent and therefore able to have good incomes, welfare and pensions for the populous. Partly because it would adversely impact those billionaires in the west and possibly partly because corruption is endemic where people are most desperate. Wars prevent any kind of improvement in societies and massively contribute to carbon.
Of course, there is zero chance of changing the minds of religious extremists from enlarging their own number as much as possible by procuration. I include all religions with that philosophy.
There is simply no way that humans will cooperate to stop the path we are on, see the various COP meetings to see that.
So perhaps the new term we should employ is 'Population Growth denier'?1 -
Come on @blackpool.blackpool72 said:Here's some figures for you.
World's population decade by decade.
1970. 3.6 Billion
1980. 4.4 Billion
1990. 5 2 Billion
2000. 6.1 Billion
2010 6 9 Billion
2020. 7.8 Billion
Anyone saying that this is not a problem and is sustainable is kidding themselves.
The worlds population having more than doubled in the past fifty years has had no impact whatsoever on carbon emissions.
The real problem is those pesky super rich (Eton educated🤣) oligarchs. And T*u*p, of course.
Gotta love CL!
2 -
The dreadful fires in California are according to the President elect due to poor forest husbandry. The lack of rainfall and extreme temperatures have been completely dismissed as “weather”.2
-
You know whose population growth really is fucking everything over? Livestock. Cattle in particular4
-
Cattle yes.Leuth said:You know whose population growth really is fucking everything over? Livestock. Cattle in particular
But with the world population doubled in the last 50 years the greater the demand for Cattle.
The greater demand for Cattle =the greater amount of rainforest destruction.4 -
Isn't that what the 'stop the boats' mantra is all about? Of course, it's dressed up in soft terms like the Channel crossing being a danger to the individuals and efforts being about stopping the 'criminal gangs', but ultimately, it's about saying we want to be able to pull the drawbridge up; we don't care about these people, we have to look after 'our own' never mind the expense to 'others'. Ultimately, no-one has a desire to come to Europe because of criminal gangs; they are merely the facilitators, not the motivators. The driving force behind such migration is that the areas people come from are so bloody horrible to try and eke out a living. Historically, war, despotism and a generally harsh economic climate have been the problem. Increasingly, climate change and the resultant desertification will be the drivers. And one of the saddest things is that, it is likely to get so bad that even the softest, most compassionate of us are likely to agree on the need to pull up the drawbridge.charltonkeston said:The rich will not be immune from the effects of climate change and I think the penny is just dropping there. As we have recently seen in California and Spain changing weather effects all, Mel Gibson while joking on a chat show being a bit of a dick his mansion was burning. But I can see a time when the rich of the world will try and pull up the drawbridge on the poorer parts of the world, unless they have something of value or exploit.3 - Sponsored links:
-
Fast food and overconsumption of beef is a key contributor to climate destruction. It doesn't follow that more people means more cattle. We could eat other thingsblackpool72 said:
Cattle yes.Leuth said:You know whose population growth really is fucking everything over? Livestock. Cattle in particular
But with the world population doubled in the last 50 years the greater the demand for Cattle.
The greater demand for Cattle =the greater amount of rainforest destruction.5 -
(I say this as someone who eats non-beef meat, before people start throwing things at me)1
-
Charlton are unbeaten this season. (Of course, I always ignore the "number of goals conceded" argument, because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure that Charlton sometimes concede goals).Hex said:
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.cantersaddick said:
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.Stu_of_Kunming said:
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households3 -
Well yes I suppose we could all become vegetarian.Leuth said:
Fast food and overconsumption of beef is a key contributor to climate destruction. It doesn't follow that more people means more cattle. We could eat other thingsblackpool72 said:
Cattle yes.Leuth said:You know whose population growth really is fucking everything over? Livestock. Cattle in particular
But with the world population doubled in the last 50 years the greater the demand for Cattle.
The greater demand for Cattle =the greater amount of rainforest destruction.
But the reality is that most people want to eat meat.
The world's population doubling over the past 50 years has directly contributed to thousands upon thousands of deforestation to enable more cattle to be produced.
To say that the two are not connected is just not true.1 -
Are you for real? 🤣Hex said:
I always ignore the ‘number of children in poverty’ argument because the calculation behind the statistic is very cleverly designed to ensure there is always a sizeable percentage of the population falling into the category.cantersaddick said:
Apologies typo now corrected - 1 third https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/11/20/study-finds-third-uk-children-living-poverty#:~:text=Newly published data show that,the country – live in poverty.SporadicAddick said:
Really?cantersaddick said:
To add to this, declining birth rates will bring this to a head. The system will have to adapt. We cannot continue with this social and economic pyramid scheme whereby we need an ever increasing population in order to pay for the overindulgence of the previous generation in our never ending hunt for greater economic "growth". And that's coming from someone who's background and career is in economics. Of course growth can only really come at someone's expense throughout history of capitalism the West has got growth on the back of exploiting various parts of the less developed world. When that ended we've cannibalised our own working class and middle class and we've run out of places to go. Declining birth rates is a generation opting out of this pyramid scheme.cantersaddick said:
Without wishing to start a political debate. No one is suggesting anyone just give up their wealth. But there is a gradual movement across Europe to do basic things like tax wealth more, target taxes at excess emissions and consumption of the super rich. The UK is generally behind Europe on this as we've always been close to the American model but there are growing calls for it. Redistributive policy is higher and higher up the agenda. It'll either happen gradually through policy and public opinion (hopefully) or there will be some kind of class revolution sooner or later. There is a growing element of class consciousness. It'll probably be too late to have a real impact on slowing climate change.Stu_of_Kunming said:
And that doesn’t make it any more likely to change, we need real, workable solutions, not pie in the sky nonsense like ‘give up your obnoxiously huge wealth, please, so pesky poor people can live’cantersaddick said:
But it’s exactly what continuing with the current system will lead to.blackpool72 said:
Said absolutely no one.Leuth said:
Far more humane to exterminate the poorest 3.6 billion people than restructure consumption at the oligarch tier of societyStu_of_Kunming said:
But that’s not going to happen is it, no one is giving up their wealth.cantersaddick said:
But this is only true if we want to continue our current overconsumption ways and our wealth hoarding ways. The richest 20 people on earth emit and consume as much as the poorest 3.6 billion people.blackpool72 said:I am by no means a climate changing denier because it's real.
My problem is with people who deny that the population of the world is increasing has nothing to do with it.
The greater the human population becomes the greater our demand on the world's resources.
People are scared of confronting this problem because most of the counties contributing to this are nor White so are scared of being called racist.
Fucking glad I'm nearly 70.
With a different system and some redistribution, population isn't the issue
The growth delusion needs to end. For society and for the climate.
To take it back to the population point I find it ironic that the political right has for decades said "dont have kids if you can't afford them"* and now people are doing that they are losing their shit about birth rates.
*which in itself is a horrendous thing to say when you take the smallest step back and apply some critical thinking. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the world and lack of empathy. People's circumstances change, they lose jobs, they get ill, have accidents, their kids need extra care or a family member needs care. It also ignores the fact that 2 thirds of kids in the UK are in poverty and 75% of those are in working households
1 -
Of course they are, but it's also the sort of extreme weather eventuality that those pesky climate change scientists have been banging on about and can explain. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, can Donald duck the evidence for much longer.ShootersHillGuru said:The dreadful fires in California are according to the President elect due to poor forest husbandry. The lack of rainfall and extreme temperatures have been completely dismissed as “weather”.3 -
I see what you did there, and I like it.swordfish said:
Of course it is, but it's also the sort of extreme weather eventuality that those pesky climate change scientists have been banging on about and can explain. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, can Donald duck the evidence for much longer.ShootersHillGuru said:The dreadful fires in California are according to the President elect due to poor forest husbandry. The lack of rainfall and extreme temperatures have been completely dismissed as “weather”.3 -
£4 on eBay
3 -
200,000 more old people each day!MrWalker said:https://www.worldometers.info/Population not exactly tumbling down, is it?
200,000++ more each day.
of course population is the problem
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?0 -
One reason might be that people are living longer. But the real reason is that the birth rate hasn't fallen below 2 at all. As of 2023, the UN figure is at 2.25. The UN expect the World population to continue to grow until 2080.stevexreeve said:
200,000 more old people each day!MrWalker said:https://www.worldometers.info/Population not exactly tumbling down, is it?
200,000++ more each day.
of course population is the problem
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?
https://population.un.org/wpp/downloads?folder=Standard Projections&group=Most used
3
