Modern Environmental movment

[EarthScienceguy]

For the past 30 years there has been a building a growing chorus of voices which seems to have reached a crescendo in the last 10 years of people screaming about the climbing rate of CO2 in our atmosphere and how this is causing the atmosphere to warm at an alarming rate. And yet CO2 is at one of its lowest points over the past 600 million years.

The alarm has gone off about melting polar ice caps and yet for most of the past 600 million years the Earth has been without polar ice caps.

The alarm has gone off about extreme weather being caused by "climate change" and yet extreme weather is caused by large differences in temperature differences. And there is evidence that when the earth was warmer the north and south poles had similar temperatures to the equator.

Life has flourished in the last 600 million years. In fact more than 90% of all life that has lived on this planet lived when the Earth was much warmer than it is today.

This facts can be known by anyone. In and are not in dispute, when Bill Nye (I am using Bill Nye as an example not because he is any type of great scientist) is pressed on these facts he does not dispute them he expresses that the rate of increase is the concerned.

With all these facts that are contrary to the climate change narrative, is there another reason why this climate change narrative is being put forward?

A major point that is raised as a cause to the raising the CO2 concentration is the population increase of the world. Bill Nye raised this point a few years ago putting forward the thought that couples should have to register to have children.

And yet the entire population of the world could fit into the the state of Florida and each one could have 200 square feet apiece.


Karl Marx

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)]

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to bluethread]

I would tend to agree with you about the urbanization, because it has been shown that urban areas drive the temperature higher in and around their centers.

Piers Corbyn has successfully used sunspot activity to predict weather far in the future. Others have shown how sunspot activity drives the increase in CO2 levels.

[Donray]

The problem is to many people. What do we do about that??????

Limit the number of children? All single woman that get pregnant will have an abortion?

What?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 22 by Donray]

Ha Ha! Herod had the right idea, then! Every child under two years of age, put to the sword?

But more seriously, the best way to limit population growth, consistent with freedom of choice, seems to be to ensure that girls are well educated. This enables them to control their own fertility, and to pursue careers of their own, both of which tend to reduce the number of children they choose to bear.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 23 by 2ndRateMind]

How long will it take to get all the woman in India a college education?

Once everyone in the world has a college education what jobs will they have? Flipping burgers with a college degree?

Sorry, no solution to population problem.

You do agree to many people is the problem?

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 23 by 2ndRateMind]

How long will it take to get all the woman in India a college education?

Interestingly, while this solution may seem obvious from the experience of the rich West, it is from Kerala, one of the poorest states in India, recently in the news over flooding, that confirmation comes. Although birth rates among Muslims have risen slightly, birth rates among Hindus and Christians have fallen, and markedly so, and more than the rest of India, such that Kerala has the lowest birth rate of all Indian states. The general consensus amongst academics is that this is due to the enlightened education policies of the state, which otherwise does not differ substantially from any other Indian state.

As for how long? Well, birth rates and education policies are both long term issues, and we are probably talking generations, not years.

As for the population being a problem; yes, I think so. There are only so many people the world's ecosystem can support, at a reasonably affluent lifestyle. We either have to curb our lifestyle consumption, or curb the population. But, if we are to do the latter, it would be far more effective to reduce the population of Americans, than to reduce the population of Indians, due to the disparities in the usage of global resources.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 22 by Donray]

Why do you think that population is the problem? Is the increase in CO2 level truly a problem? Why do you think an increase in CO2 problematic?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

For the past 30 years there has been a building a growing chorus of voices which seems to have reached a crescendo in the last 10 years of people screaming about the climbing rate of CO2 in our atmosphere and how this is causing the atmosphere to warm at an alarming rate. And yet CO2 is at one of its lowest points over the past 600 million years.

The alarm has gone off about melting polar ice caps and yet for most of the past 600 million years the Earth has been without polar ice caps.

The alarm has gone off about extreme weather being caused by "climate change" and yet extreme weather is caused by large differences in temperature differences. And there is evidence that when the earth was warmer the north and south poles had similar temperatures to the equator.

Life has flourished in the last 600 million years. In fact more than 90% of all life that has lived on this planet lived when the Earth was much warmer than it is today.

This facts can be known by anyone. In and are not in dispute, when Bill Nye (I am using Bill Nye as an example not because he is any type of great scientist) is pressed on these facts he does not dispute them he expresses that the rate of increase is the concerned.

With all these facts that are contrary to the climate change narrative, is there another reason why this climate change narrative is being put forward?

A major point that is raised as a cause to the raising the CO2 concentration is the population increase of the world. Bill Nye raised this point a few years ago putting forward the thought that couples should have to register to have children.

And yet the entire population of the world could fit into the the state of Florida and each one could have 200 square feet apiece.


Karl Marx

You must, therefore, confess that by "individual" you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. (Published by Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1973 edition, page 66)]

For the past 30 years there has been a building a growing chorus of voices which seems to have reached a crescendo in the last 10 years of people screaming about the climbing rate of CO2 in our atmosphere and how this is causing the atmosphere to warm at an alarming rate. And yet CO2 is at one of its lowest points over the past 600 million years.

Let's correct the nasty fabrication that CO2 levels are actually falling, first.

INDEPENDANT

Environment
Carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere reach 'highest level in 800,000 years'
Levels exceed average of 410 parts per million across an entire month for the first time

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached its highest level in at least 800,000 years, according to scientists.

In April, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere exceeded an average of 410 parts per million (ppm) across the entire month, according to readings from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

This is the first time in the history of the observatory’s readings that a monthly average has exceeded that level.
https://www.independent.co.uk/environme ... 37921.html




I am not accusing you of being a liar. But you are woefully misinformed. Fabrications about the state of CO2 levels like the one you have made are very much like the claims that Christians have been making for the last few years that the theory of evolution has been so thoroughly discredited that even scientists are abandoning it. This is flatly DELUSIONAL, and only draws attention to the fact that believers tend to be woefully ignorant on the subject of science and live in a world of make believe that they have created for themselves. Natural selection and evolution are the very cornerstones of modern biology. The fact that Christians have created this delusional world for themselves goes a long way towards explaining why the number of people in the US who consider themselves Christians has dropped from 90% to about 70% since the beginning of this century, and why belief in Christianity is rapidly evaporating away in the world's well educated countries.

[2ndRateMind]

[Replying to post 27 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Hmmm. While I welcome your intervention, I think you should be aware that not all Christians reject Darwin's theories, and the subsequent weight of evidence accumulated in support of them. I find my faith entirely consistent with the pursuit of scientific truth, since all truth is God's Truth, and indicative of His nature. Indeed, I find a God who patiently took eons to construct the world we have and bring His vision about far more awesome than a God who merely snapped His fingers in 4004 BC and made everything exist by magic fiat, including the fossil record to deceive us.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Donray]

[Replying to post 28 by 2ndRateMind]

So, you do belive that man and apes evolved from a common ancestry? That all life originated from single cell things and that your god did not create man but let him evolve from non human species?


You belive man came from random mutations?

[2ndRateMind]

You belive man came from random mutations?

With an important caveat. While the phenotypes may be randomly influenced, their survival to breed, and breeding success, depend on the environment and the preferences of the opposite sex. It's a ratchet effect; 'good' DNA remains in the gene-pool, 'bad' DNA is selected out. This sifting process ensures that the majority of the population will always be suited to their circumstances, given enough time to adapt. That all seems to me to be a simple, elegant, rather beautiful, method of befitting a species to the vicissitudes of changing times.

Best wishes, 2RM.