The Global Warming Megathread

[Hairyloon]

Thats a good question,climate change is a natural part of life on the planet it has been changing all the time for billions of years,but if that includes a man made climate change disaster i would say not.Involuntary manslaughter if you like.

 

The most likely scenario is that climate change will cause extensive crop failures leading to wars over diminishing resources followed by mass starvations.

 

I can't find any way of stretching definitions so as to class that as a natural disaster...

[Tim Grindley]

But does a natural disaster count as killing people off or is it just a natural part of life on the planet?

This idea that there are too many people or that somehow poor people in the world should be allowed or even encorraged to die off is simply evil.

 

There are plenty of resources. Resources have never been more plentiful.

 

The more humans are out and about and being ingenious and industrious in getting them the more we have.

 

Oil reserves are at an all time high. This is due to the stupid panic over "peak oil". Well the doom mongers we wrong. The increased price of oil resulted in increased effort to find new oil and increased effort to develope technology to get it out of existing oil wells. Now we have over 60 years of proven reserves.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

 

I was taught in school 35 years ago that there were only 15 years of oil left.

 

Th eprice of food, in spite of the crime of artificially increasing it by using food as fuel, is lower than at almost any time. Again, better ways of growing the stuff.

 

If the demand was there we would green the deserets of the world. This is a New scientist article on using only sunshine and sea water to grow in the Austrailin desert;

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108296-first-farm-to-grow-veg-in-a-desert-using-only-sun-and-seawater/

 

If the population of the world which is engaged in the world economy to the extent that they are potential car buyers, ie the rich third, was to double then this sort of thing would be practicle due to the lowering of the cost of the machinery you need to make it. Mass production produces very low costs but requires mass consumption thus mass consumers.

 

The more people in the world, being part of the economy, the more wealth your work will be paid. It is counter intuitive but right.

 

We should stop being evil, raising the price of food to make rich western farmers even richer, and look forward to the better world to come.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2017 at 21:40 ----------

 

The most likely scenario is that climate change will cause extensive crop failures leading to wars over diminishing resources followed by mass starvations.

 

I can't find any way of stretching definitions so as to class that as a natural disaster...

Can you actually cite any actual science that supports that claim?

 

If you do, and it stands up to some scrutiny, then you have passed the challenge of this thread.

 

If you can't fine any at all will you perhaps change your mind?

[Hairyloon]

Can you actually cite any actual science that supports that claim?

 

Context dear boy. The point was in relation to killing off the poor people in a "natural disaster".

[apelike]

This idea that there are too many people or that somehow poor people in the world should be allowed or even encorraged to die off is simply evil.

 

I agree that's why I posed what I wrote as a question.

 

The price of food, in spite of the crime of artificially increasing it by using food as fuel, is lower than at almost any time. Again, better ways of growing the stuff.

 

Sorry I dont understand as if the price has been artificially increased (citation needed) by using it as fuel then how can it still be lower in price?

 

If the demand was there we would green the deserets of the world. This is a New scientist article on using only sunshine and sea water to grow in the Austrailin desert;

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2108296-first-farm-to-grow-veg-in-a-desert-using-only-sun-and-seawater/

 

This is not about demand but money and who will foot the bill as this one in Australia is fairly small and yet will cost $200 million, not taking into account rising costs. Its already possible to have solar panels which could be used to desalinate water and then pump it through a network of pipelines to places in Africa. It would help cure famine and give clean drinking water but again, who will pay for this as there is no quick profit return for investors.

 

We should stop being evil, raising the price of food to make rich western farmers even richer, and look forward to the better world to come.

 

Can you actually cite anything that supports that claim?

[Tim Grindley]

Originally Posted by Hairyloon View Post

The most likely scenario is that climate change will cause extensive crop failures leading to wars over diminishing resources followed by mass starvations.

 

Context dear boy. The point was in relation to killing off the poor people in a "natural disaster".

I ask again, do you have any actual science which supports that evil nasty idea or are you just making yourself feel better about poor people dying?

[El Cid]

I ask again, do you have any actual science which supports that evil nasty idea or are you just making yourself feel better about poor people dying?

 

Thousands of people have been killed by extreme weather so far this year and now scientists fear a weather event will cause droughts, wildfires, flooding, landslides and food shortages.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thousands-of-people-killed-by-extreme-weather-so-far-in-2015-as-climate-change-feared-to-bring-more-10345883.html

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

[Tim Grindley]

I agree that's why I posed what I wrote as a question.

 

 

 

Sorry I dont understand as if the price has been artificially increased (citation needed) by using it as fuel then how can it still be lower in price?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/01/biofuels-driving-food-prices-higher

 

There are numerous causes to the recent price rises, but biofuels remain a significant piece of the puzzle. About 40% of US corn goes into biofuels. Today, 18% of biofuels now used in the UK are made from wheat and corn that are staple foods in the developing world. Yet just over a year ago, the UK hardly used either of these.

 

This demand can do nothing but drive food prices higher. And the demand is only set to grow. The EU alone is planning to more than double the amount of biofuels it uses in the next 10 years.

 

https://www.transportenvironment.org/newsroom/blog/europes-love-affair-biofuels-rocks?gclid=CP_jrr7e1dMCFe0Q0wod0-8Aww

 

http://oecdinsights.org/2010/01/25/biofuel/

 

The price of food is reducing but it would be cheaper still without 40% of US grain and 46% of EU vegitable oil going into making diesel which as either zero or negative overall effects on CO2 out put. As in it makes more CO2 over all.

 

 

This is not about demand but money and who will foot the bill as this one in Australia is fairly small and yet will cost $200 million, not taking into account rising costs. Its already possible to have solar panels which could be used to desalinate water and then pump it through a network of pipelines to places in Africa. It would help cure famine and give clean drinking water but again, who will pay for this as there is no quick profit return for investors.

 

Which is why it is never going to be a problem for rich people to find food. People who's economic development is dragged back by having their income of $300 a year raided by rich western farmers to the tune of $140 a year by these policies do not get to be rich enough to invest in anything. If they are allowed to doevelop they will then be able to buy the stuff we make to do the solar powered desalination etc.

 

---------- Post added 04-05-2017 at 08:59 ----------

 

Thousands of people have been killed by extreme weather so far this year and now scientists fear a weather event will cause droughts, wildfires, flooding, landslides and food shortages.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thousands-of-people-killed-by-extreme-weather-so-far-in-2015-as-climate-change-feared-to-bring-more-10345883.html

 

Saturday 27 June 2015 13:59 BST

 

Yes extrem weather is a killer. Not as big as lots of things that kill people. Can you cite any actual science which supports the idea that this will be more extreme in a slightly warmer world. I will need a science paper that actually details the mechanism for this.

 

Warning, I have not had that cited on a reputable science forum. They have not cited such for a couple of months. Nor anywhere else.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

 

I know NASA is fond of producing these things that could have come out of the office of Greenpeace but I will stilldemand actual science that supports these general statements of doom.

[Annie Bynnol]

 

I was taught in school 35 years ago that there were only 15 years of oil left.

 

 

I was taught in school 44 years ago that there was only 25 years of oil left at the current increase in rate of use from proven, extractable reserves. He went on to say that as in all examples of mineral extraction, the world would never run out. He continued that of course geology would provide more sources and abstraction technology would enable more sources to be used with higher rates of production. He continued with the simple economic fact that the increases in cost would lead to financial and political support for substitutes and technologies that would provide alternatives which would supplement but not replace oil in all cases.

 

History has proven him right- but his prediction of our current situation would come about is not. Oil substitutes and feed stock production from unmanned deep mined coal by automation and liquefaction was his prediction*.

 

Unlike others he did not resort to "learned papers" or "reports" from vested interests or political groups as "science, economics and serendipity will never make a gambler rich" but would "impact the future direction".

 

Holding any fixed opinion or arguing any point about future scenarios is at best a guestimate and cannot ever be proven.

 

*Hmm- fracking.

[El Cid]

I know NASA is fond of producing these things that could have come out of the office of Greenpeace but I will still demand actual science that supports these general statements of doom.

 

This is rather boring, you can demand all you want. You will be saying NASA hasn't sent anyone to the moon and its all a hoax.

 

Science that supports climate change can be found using Google, if you cannot be bothered to do that, then you are not interested in the subject.

[Hairyloon]

Science that supports climate change can be found using Google, if you cannot be bothered to do that, then you are not interested in the subject.

 

I think he is not denying that climate change is happening, he appears to reject the idea that it will be a bad thing...