Looks to me like on many more levels than the protagonists would admit, this is a classic case of furious agreement. But yes, there are some differences. Whether they have direct connection to the topic at hand is a much more fascinating to explore. (For me...)
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
I never said you wasn't concerned Queensland, where we disagree is what is causing it and how to deal with it. Sadly doing nothing is not an option and I don't know where you got your 'Scientists have yet to understand the real cause' statement, they do know the real cause and it comes from human life.
Looks to me like on many more levels than the protagonists would admit, this is a classic case of furious agreement. But yes, there are some differences. Whether they have direct connection to the topic at hand is a much more fascinating to explore. (For me...)
Crazy isn't it! I think the only bone of contention really is whether an increasing number of people emitting pollutants into the atmosphere, equates to worsening of climate change or not. But hey, if old Queenie says something, it has to be knocked back, despite having proved to have been correct about so much in the past! Roll on Monday!
The thing is, we do know that year on year the planet is warming. That’s the fact of the matter. Now regardless of whether you think it’s just cyclical and inevitable or whether you think the warming is being fuelled by man, the fact remains that it’s still warming. That’s where we are. We also know that man can try to mitigate the warming by all of the green initiatives we’ve done to death on this thread. Now it might be pissing in the wind but it’s got to be worth a try, because if we don’t at least try then the future of mankind as we know it is at a very real risk. It’s a no brainer whatever side of the climate debate you sit.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
I never said you wasn't concerned Queensland, where we disagree is what is causing it and how to deal with it. Sadly doing nothing is not an option and I don't know where you got your 'Scientists have yet to understand the real cause' statement, they do know the real cause and it comes from human life.
For clarity, I was referring to which pollutants are contributing most to the problem. If you read the article posted by Swordfish, that article also casts doubts of whether Carbon Dioxide is as big a contributor than was originally thought.
The thing is, we do know that year on year the planet is warming. That’s the fact of the matter. Now regardless of whether you think it’s just cyclical and inevitable or whether you think the warming is being fuelled by man, the fact remains that it’s still warming. That’s where we are. We also know that man can try to mitigate the warming by all of the green initiatives we’ve done to death on this thread. Now it might be pissing in the wind but it’s got to be worth a try, because if we don’t at least try then the future of mankind as we know it is at a very real risk. It’s a no brainer whatever side of the climate debate you sit.
I sometimes feel like I'm going round in circles posting on here, but we know it isn't cyclical in this instance. Solar irradiance based on minor changes to the earths orbit has been used to explain climate volatility in the past, but the scientists, who deal in facts based on evidence, not opinion, have identified the cause of the current warming. "The vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change". That's taken from the NASA site based on the findings of more than 200 bodies. The area of uncertainty is in predicting the outcomes of us acting to reduce our carbon emissions. We've caused it, but can we stop it, or is it too late? Like you say, it's got to be worth a try.
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
I never said you wasn't concerned Queensland, where we disagree is what is causing it and how to deal with it. Sadly doing nothing is not an option and I don't know where you got your 'Scientists have yet to understand the real cause' statement, they do know the real cause and it comes from human life.
For clarity, I was referring to which pollutants are contributing most to the problem. If you read the article posted by Swordfish, that article also casts doubts of whether Carbon Dioxide is as big a contributor than was originally thought.
CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas for many years. I'm 67 but I remember my geography lessons from school and being told that the planet would be too cold for human habitation if it were not for greenhouse gases like CO2. Since then, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has grown and now it is making the planet too warm.
Biodiversity is essential for a healthy planet and we could be doing so much more, if we worked with nature to mitigate some of the effects of climate change.
The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world and we need to do more to protect our wildlife. Rapid Climate Change makes it difficult for many species to adapt and we all need to help nature and restore land to a healthier state.
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
The leadership may have doubts, but much of the proof of it comes from US scientists, and voters who believe them, whatever party they voted for, may voluntarily take personal responsibility for making the changes necessary to tackle it. Those that don't believe it won't, but surely not all Republicans there, or Reform voters here, believe it's a hoax. It's just not top of their priorities, but I'm straying into politics and shouldn't.
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
So it's man fuelled climate change. But the amount of "men" contributing to it is totally irrelevant!
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately. .
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
So it's man fuelled climate change. But the amount of "men" contributing to it is totally irrelevant!
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately. .
And not before time !!! It has been long and dreary 500 years since the Reformation...
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
So it's man fuelled climate change. But the amount of "men" contributing to it is totally irrelevant!
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately. .
The world is definitely waking up to lunacy - every single day.
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
So it's man fuelled climate change. But the amount of "men" contributing to it is totally irrelevant!
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately. .
Where has anyone said it’s irrelevant? The problem is certainly demand but we are where we are. What are you advocating? A cull ?
This is a bit like the Brexit, remain argument, if it goes the same way then the climate deniers will probably state that there was definitely no climate emergency despite the world catching fire, it was that we simply didn't use climate denying in the best possible way.
"Climate change deniers" is such a ridiculous term seeing as the climate changes literally every 30+ years.
People are very aware of the Ice Age, just as they are aware of the current warming.
The only thing in dispute, is whether we, the human race, can have any meaningful influence on that rate of change.
We cannot stop an earthquake, we cannot stop a volcano from erupting, a tsunami from forming, or a solar eclipse plunging the planet into darkness.
Some forces of nature are simply beyond human intervention.
By drastically reducing carbon emissions we could probably have a small impact on the current warming, but that would take a huge reduction in the population.
All we are doing currently is tinkering around the margins.
Do you know Queensland, if I wanted to get an extension built on my house, I'd get the experts in, surveyor, draftsman, builders, I might have an opinion how it should be built, to what dimensions and to the standards required, but the experts that I have mentioned know exactly how it should be done, so ..................I don't have you down as an expert so if you don't mind I will take advice from the people who do, the scientists.
I've built 4 houses, 3 in Australia, 1 in Thailand. How many have you built?
I'm offering advice to no one. I'm simply stating an opinion, which in what a discussion forum should be all about.
BTW scientists have been known to get things wrong.
Exactly my point Queensland, I will come to you for a house because you have a track record of success in house building, a scientist does not have need a track record, he assesses data and yes scientists get things wrong but then you get into the laws of probability, when hundreds of scientists around the world assess the data and collectively conclude that the Earth is warming and we can reduce that warming then the laws of probability narrow considerably. The Earth is warming, fossil fuels, deforestation are a part of that and I'm sorry but your opinon is yours but most everyone else is listening to the experts not the opinions of someone with no expertise in that field.
Sorry, but I respectfully think you've been taken in by someone above labelling me a "climate change denier".
They do love to attribute labels to anyone with a common sense view that doesn't align with their own Left wing ideology. Hopefully the world is now finally waking up to this tactic, and people are beginning to no longer be afraid of stating their opinion for fear of being labelled a "Climate denier", "Racist", "homophobic" etc, etc.
For clarity I accept that the climate is warming, but that scientists have yet to fully understand the real cause and how best to deal with it.
My concern is that the real elephant in the room is the huge increase in the global population, and that all the tinkering in the world is going to make miniscule difference, until that population explosion starts to decline, and even then not for many decades after. The actions that we take in Western societies is of little consequence, if that same approach is not adopted throughout the world and particularly the worst offenders. That is not happening, and it's unlikely that it ever will.
It is clearly evident that some of the more radical posters on this thread deny that there is any link between global population growth with the increase in emissions, whilst at the same time pretending to be more concerned about the planet than someone like myself.
1) no they know for sure on the first and have a good idea of the best ways to deal with it 2) This argument is at least 5 if not 10 years of out date - china and India (and south America) are massively investing in green. Delaying our own green investment in the name of the economy is only going to make us more economically reliant on them for those products. China is investing 10s of billions in clean energy a year. Its early days and they are later to the party than the west but their projections of cleaning up are way quicker than the US and lots of Europe now if they continue at the pace they are at. 3) no one has ever said that but what we have said is there is a way this planet can sustain this population (which it has to try unless you are gonna go on one hell of a murder spree) and that is to reduce the excessive overconsumption of the billionaire class along with sensible adjustments of the rest of the developed world and investing heavily in technology.
Mad world where wanting action to prevent large swathes of humanity from dying in huge humanitarian crises is "radical".
Oh that's an easy one actually. I'm funded by Big Woke, which is a subsidiary of Quorn
The trees are actually funding me. You see climate change is all a myth created by them to get us to increase their population.
Or maybe we should actually take the funding question seriously. We have two sides the "green lobby" often referred to by people like queenie as apparently having far too much influence. Who is this? just normal people organised trying to make a difference. Funded out their own pocket. Vs those anti green/anti climate change action or climate change deniers. Who are they funded/influenced by. Well there is the energy sector worth trillions, whose profits increased more than 200% during the latest energy crisis, who provider 100% of the funding for Tufton St fake policy centres, who provide 92% of the funding for a certain hard right UK politcal party, are owned by the same people who own much of the UK media and provide almost half of all political donations in the UK (similar story across the west).
Now which one of those has more influence do we reckon?
We do know it’s not cyclical. Absolutely we do but the fact remains that some people think it is. In fact the soon to be most powerful man on the planet does. Green is not going to be big in The USA for at least the next four years. We have to recognise that even in the face of overwhelming science there are deniers of man fuelled climate change. In the UK we have the noisiest political party, Reform completely dismissive of the need to try and cut emissions. They have millions of people voting for them.
So it's man fuelled climate change. But the amount of "men" contributing to it is totally irrelevant!
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately. .
Where has anyone said it’s irrelevant? The problem is certainly demand but we are where we are. What are you advocating? A cull ?
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?
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.
These figures do suggest that world population will peak at around 10.5 in 2080.
The UK's population will also peak around the same time. But will "only" increase by about 10 million over that time. We should be able to cope with that over 55 years.
Interestingly China's (and Italy's!) population is predicted to have halved by this time. The world will certainly be a different place by then if we make it through climate change.
I don't whether these calculations assume a stable birth rate.
But this web site seems to suggest it is still falling quite rapidly!
The rate seems to definitely be continuing to fall quite dramatically.
Even more alarming is when you scroll down to the break-down by country. 1.6 children per woman!
If you click on "Map" you see the culprit is basically Africa where women are still having 4 or 5 children. Not sure why that is true but I think it could change quite rapidly if the political situation is resolved.
Anyway I think we've hijacked this thread. Sorry to everyone else!
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?
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.
These figures do suggest that world population will peak at around 10.5 in 2080.
The UK's population will also peak around the same time. But will "only" increase by about 10 million over that time. We should be able to cope with that over 55 years.
Interestingly China's (and Italy's!) population is predicted to have halved by this time. The world will certainly be a different place by then if we make it through climate change.
I don't whether these calculations assume a stable birth rate.
But this web site seems to suggest it is still falling quite rapidly!
The rate seems to definitely be continuing to fall quite dramatically.
Even more alarming is when you scroll down to the break-down by country. 1.6 children per woman!
If you click on "Map" you see the culprit is basically Africa where women are still having 4 or 5 children. Not sure why that is true but I think it could change quite rapidly if the political situation is resolved.
Anyway I think we've hijacked this thread. Sorry to everyone else!
If the birth rate falls below 2 per couple how (on earth!) can the population continue to increase?
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.
These figures do suggest that world population will peak at around 10.5 in 2080.
The UK's population will also peak around the same time. But will "only" increase by about 10 million over that time. We should be able to cope with that over 55 years.
Interestingly China's (and Italy's!) population is predicted to have halved by this time. The world will certainly be a different place by then if we make it through climate change.
I don't whether these calculations assume a stable birth rate.
But this web site seems to suggest it is still falling quite rapidly!
The rate seems to definitely be continuing to fall quite dramatically.
Even more alarming is when you scroll down to the break-down by country. 1.6 children per woman!
If you click on "Map" you see the culprit is basically Africa where women are still having 4 or 5 children. Not sure why that is true but I think it could change quite rapidly if the political situation is resolved.
Anyway I think we've hijacked this thread. Sorry to everyone else!
Comments
I think the only bone of contention really is whether an increasing number of people emitting pollutants into the atmosphere, equates to worsening of climate change or not.
But hey, if old Queenie says something, it has to be knocked back, despite having proved to have been correct about so much in the past!
Roll on Monday!
If you read the article posted by Swordfish, that article also casts doubts of whether Carbon Dioxide is as big a contributor than was originally thought.
Biodiversity is essential for a healthy planet and we could be doing so much more, if we worked with nature to mitigate some of the effects of climate change.
The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world and we need to do more to protect our wildlife. Rapid Climate Change makes it difficult for many species to adapt and we all need to help nature and restore land to a healthier state.
Got it.
A bit like the NHS argument about the amount of people queuing up for a GP appointment has got no impact on how quickly anyone gets to actually see their GP, ie it's got nothing to do with over population, or too many people requiring treatment at the same time.
Such arguments are ridiculous and nonsensical, they lack logic and they lack common sense.
Thankfully the world is finally waking up to such lunacy, but CL still seems to be lagging unfortunately.
.
It has been long and dreary 500 years since the Reformation...
The world is definitely waking up to lunacy - every single day.
Get a room you two ;-)
2) This argument is at least 5 if not 10 years of out date - china and India (and south America) are massively investing in green. Delaying our own green investment in the name of the economy is only going to make us more economically reliant on them for those products. China is investing 10s of billions in clean energy a year. Its early days and they are later to the party than the west but their projections of cleaning up are way quicker than the US and lots of Europe now if they continue at the pace they are at.
3) no one has ever said that but what we have said is there is a way this planet can sustain this population (which it has to try unless you are gonna go on one hell of a murder spree) and that is to reduce the excessive overconsumption of the billionaire class along with sensible adjustments of the rest of the developed world and investing heavily in technology.
Mad world where wanting action to prevent large swathes of humanity from dying in huge humanitarian crises is "radical".
Now which one of those has more influence do we reckon?
The UK's population will also peak around the same time. But will "only" increase by about 10 million over that time. We should be able to cope with that over 55 years.
Interestingly China's (and Italy's!) population is predicted to have halved by this time. The world will certainly be a different place by then if we make it through climate change.
I don't whether these calculations assume a stable birth rate.
But this web site seems to suggest it is still falling quite rapidly!
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?end=2022&start=1960&view=chart
The rate seems to definitely be continuing to fall quite dramatically.
Even more alarming is when you scroll down to the break-down by country. 1.6 children per woman!
If you click on "Map" you see the culprit is basically Africa where women are still having 4 or 5 children. Not sure why that is true but I think it could change quite rapidly if the political situation is resolved.
Anyway I think we've hijacked this thread. Sorry to everyone else!
Problem is I shall be 124 years old.