• PRE should be functioning as per usual. Please email admin@puntroadend.com to report anything odd that is occuring over the next few days as we settle a few database issues.

Global Warming

E

easy_tiger

Guest
Coburgtiger said:
It is pretty hilarious that all the conservatives and deniers have suddenly jumped on the over population train.

For so long they've been telling us that climate change isn't an issue. Recently, in the face of overwhelming evidence, they've been saying that it is an issue but it's not human driven. Now they've jumped sideways to the idea that climate change isn't the issue, it's humans themselves that are the issue.

It's an interesting 180 from humans aren't causing the problem, to humans are the only problem.

Four issues with this new misdirect.
1. No duh. Humans are bad for the other animals. We know this. In this context, the 'over' part of over population is redundant. Human populations have been out competing other species for resources for hundreds of thousands of years, since we were a population measured in the thousands. Any population is over population as far as the wiping out of natural habitats is concerned. Encroaching on natural habitats is what we do. Here's the thing. A lot of people asking for action on climate change don't actually care about the trees or the frogs or the bees. They care about the people. Climate change is going to affect us way more than the environment. The environment has been around for four and a half billion years and will continue to so for the next few billion. What we want is to maintain one that is good for humans.
2. We already have action on our increasing population. Our growth is not exponential. The rate of growth has been declining for the last 50 years. Meanwhile the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the last 50 years.
3. Increasing population is a non issue if your impact decreases. Impact on the environment is the thing we want to address. Obviously, one way is to eradicate people, but we like people
4. What are these people actually suggesting? I've still never heard any ideas. Immigration? Unless they're coming in from outer space, what? Distribution of prophylactics and sex Ed? Definitely! We're already doing that, let's keep it up. All that's left is castration and culling. Clearly that causes the problem we're trying to solve. Human suffering.

It's basically whataboutism. Let's ignore climate change because humans cause environmental issues just by existing. Uhhhhhhhhhhhh
good post Burger.

there's a definite shift on here amongst the deniers.

Still, its more sophisticated than single use plastic bags being the focus of saving the reef :headscratch
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
lukeanddad said:
L2 can stand up for himself, but it is frustrating to see people conflating two distinct actions that are causing environmental problems. Of the 1m species that are threatened, how many are due to us/humans encroaching on habitats Vs climate change?

I agree that overpopulation is the greater risk, I just wish there is a solution that doesn’t see us with an average global population age of 60 by 2050!
Compulsory euthanasia is the answer. Cap it at 65, then we don't have to worry about retirement age, funding retirees, aged health care etc.
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Coburgtiger said:
2. We already have action on our increasing population. Our growth is not exponential. The rate of growth has been declining for the last 50 years. Meanwhile the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the last 50 years.
3. Increasing population is a non issue if your impact decreases. Impact on the environment is the thing we want to address. Obviously, one way is to eradicate people, but we like people
2. Is the population increasing or decreasing or maintaining? You sound like a politician. The rate of growth is declining so its OK? WTF?

3. Whilst I agree we have to reduce our emissions and renewables are the answer you really think any of what we do will make squat difference to the overall CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you think India/China will care what we do here in Aust if its not financially convenient for them?

https://qz.com/india/1581665/indias-carbon-emissions-growing-faster-than-us-china-says-iea/

https://www.eco-business.com/news/india-and-china-drive-global-uptick-in-carbon-emissions/
 

MD Jazz

Tiger Champion
Feb 3, 2017
3,791
454
Not all is going to plan in India & China

https://www.sustainability-times.com/low-carbon-energy/coal-burning-in-china-and-india-has-seen-a-hike-in-co2-emissions/
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Coburgtiger said:
It is pretty hilarious that all the conservatives and deniers have suddenly jumped on the over population train.
Yes, I just suddenly changed my tune.

Ian4 said:
some say global warming is the biggest threat to life as we know it. i disagree. IMO overpopulation is the real problem.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Just posted this exact sentiment on the GW thread without realising this thread existed. Will read in full when I have time.
2. We already have action on our increasing population. Our growth is not exponential. The rate of growth has been declining for the last 50 years. Meanwhile the rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the last 50 years.
It's not exponential?



How do current temps compare with temps the last time CO2 was at 400ppm?

That difficulty in connecting CO2 to temperature is such a nuisance.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Yes, I just suddenly changed my tune.

It's not exponential?



How do current temps compare with temps the last time CO2 was at 400ppm?

That difficulty in connecting CO2 to temperature is such a nuisance.
Population growth has been exponential if you start at homo heidelbergensis. It hasn't been for the last 50 years.

Not surprised that you still haven't suggested any actual action to take.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Coburgtiger said:
Not surprised that you still haven't suggested any actual action to take.
I don't know the universally acceptable answer. There probably isn't one. China's one child policy has put the brakes on. Good luck implementing it in Africa.
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I don't know the universally acceptable answer. There probably isn't one. China's one child policy has put the brakes on. Good luck implementing it in Africa.
Why not here? We're all on the earth.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Coburgtiger said:
Why not here? We're all on the earth.
Immigration accounts for two thirds of our population growth and is commanded by economic imperatives. Maybe the economic models can be looked at.

One child per family or cuts to immigration? Which policy would you go with to win an election?
 

willo

Tiger Legend
Oct 13, 2007
14,873
161
Broken Hill
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Immigration accounts for two thirds of our population growth and is commanded by economic imperatives. Maybe the economic models can be looked at.

One child per family or cuts to immigration? Which policy would you go with to win an election?
Be hard for me to give one of mine back ;D
 

Coburgtiger

Tiger Champion
May 7, 2012
2,761
271
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Immigration accounts for two thirds of our population growth and is commanded by economic imperatives. Maybe the economic models can be looked at.

One child per family or cuts to immigration? Which policy would you go with to win an election?
How does immigration affect global population?
 

Brodders17

Tiger Legend
Mar 21, 2008
11,133
201
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
I don't know the universally acceptable answer. There probably isn't one. China's one child policy has put the brakes on. Good luck implementing it in Africa.
foreign aid often aids slowly population growth but increaseing levels of education, and providing education about, and options for, birth control.

Trump tried (not sure if he was successful) to outlaw American foreign aid to be given to any org that was in any was involved in abortions.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
LeeToRainesToRoach said:
One child per family or cuts to immigration? Which policy would you go with to win an election?
I had cuts to my testicles.

Didnt win me any elections,

But certainly gave mrs, easy the confidence to climb back on the horse.

LeeToRainesToRoach said:
Are we still talking about Australia or have you moved the goalposts?
You dont need to be a rocket surgeon to work out you wouldn't give the slightest stuff about immigration from Syria to Greece.

This whole population thing is a red herring as the science becomes overwhelming for even the most ardent denier.

You really reckon if ebolla wiped out a billion Africans,

that the first world wouldn't be emitting their Co2 by the end of the week?

nah, you're backing the wrong horse fellas,

plastic bags is where its at. them, and composting. maybe a few cherry tomatoes amongst the azaleas as well. permaculture and that.
 

LeeToRainesToRoach

Get out Gillon
Jun 4, 2006
23,675
899
Melbourne
Brodders17 said:
foreign aid often aids slowly population growth but increaseing levels of education, and providing education about, and options for, birth control.

Trump tried (not sure if he was successful) to outlaw American foreign aid to be given to any org that was in any was involved in abortions.
Nigeria is projected to have a larger population than the US in 30 years, and Boko Haram is ensuring those people don't get educated.

Don't agree with Trump on that one. Should keep his local politics, local.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,066
61
Ireland
In the below image follow the black line. You will see the real actual emission drop sharply as the ETS comes online around 2007. That drop facilitated "carbon credits" which are being used to pay for the absolutely nothing the conservatives have been doing since they took power, shown by the big arrow.

 

mrposhman

Tiger Legend
Oct 6, 2013
5,978
432
KnightersRevenge said:
In the below image follow the black line. You will see the real actual emission drop sharply as the ETS comes online around 2007. That drop facilitated "carbon credits" which are being used to pay for the absolutely nothing the conservatives have been doing since they took power, shown by the big arrow.

Not just the conservatives. You realise that labor included in their environmental plan a large increase in International carbon credits.

It appears that no-one actually wants to try and address this issue within Australia.

My view is simple, solar subsidies should be brought back in. Economically they make a lot of sense compared to large scale replacement of power stations. More solar power being created directly by homes and businesses will reduce the reliance on new power stations when older ones are decommissioned.
 

antman

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2004
16,538
827
Bali/Jakarta
The tragedy of that graph is that we were coming out of the GFC and we managed to significantly reduce emmissions and the economy was just fine.
 
E

easy_tiger

Guest
Hows how these ***** think not destroying our earth is like doing your tax.

they essentially want their cooked books of emissions targets franked

so they pump a bit more Co2 up there.

A genius dystopian sci-fi author couldn't make this **** up.
 

KnightersRevenge

Baby Knighters is on board.
Aug 21, 2007
6,066
61
Ireland
easy said:
Hows how these *smile*s think not destroying our earth is like doing your tax.

they essentially want their cooked books of emissions targets franked

so they pump a bit more Co2 up there.

A genius dystopian sci-fi author couldn't make this sh!t up.
Still salty easy? They're all in it for what they can get out of it I reckon. Maybe Wong, Wilkie might have some integrity. I'd be hard pushed to name another.