Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

[wmiddlemas]

Who has discredited Hansen ? Obviously not the scientific community since he has just published a paper with them ! I think you are awash in misinformation. I have not heard your views, but with comments like that I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about. You need to become a little better informed before participating in serious discussion about the environment I think.

[forfismum]

Read what I wrote again ,Hansen has a comma after,and what I said was the discredited IPCC.But now that you mention it,Hansen is just a joke and as someone said before

Hansen is explained very easily.He uses AlGoreIthms.

.He has a habit of trying to belittle folks who have pointed out his errors and works a lot on bluster,just like big Al.He went to great lengths to try to eliminate the warm period of the 1930's so that his projections would look good but was caught out.
Of course I haven't a clue about the subject,I was waiting for you to come along and show me the true word.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

There is a direct correlation in parts per million of carbon to the growth of world population with an exponetial increase in the last half of the last century. For the last 500 thousand years the carbon concentration in the atomosphere has been no higher than 350 parts per million. Now it is over 365 per millon and growing. Last year alone it grew by 2 parts per million -- and unprecidented increase in just one year ! Additionally, with the melting of glacier and polar cap ice, methane is increasing at an ever increasing rate further adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Basically from a growth of 2.5 billion in the early fifties to 6.0 billon now, the increase in carbon in the atmosphere is an astronomical 4% with most of it coming in the last 20 years.

I

Where did you get that lot from?

[wmiddlemas]

To my knowledge no one has ever pointed out anything substantive about Al Gore's presentation that was accurate and fully backed up by scientific data and agreed upon by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community. I don't know why you and others continue to deny that current climate warming is being caused by human activity. Does it feel better to deny this and pretend that this is a natural occurance that we can't do anything about? Does it make you feel better to to protect the oil and coal industries industries? Climate change and the human activity correlation is supported by so much overwhelming evidence that it is absurd even to discuss the cause, we should be moving on and talking about the solutions which is why I entered the thread of Depopulation in the first place.

Please tell me why you don't believe that the current climate crisis is NOT caused by human activity. You have not set forth one argument against what I have said other than to say it is not true. What do you base your opinions on ?

[forfismum]

Gore operates a cult.One of the tennets of this cult was the Hockey Stick projection which seemingly forgot to include the Little ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.But in this forum we have discussed all of this umteen times and every so often up pops a newbie follower of Al's cult and off we go again.This time due to some of the threads being lost from the forum I cant point you back at them, maybe someone else will have the patience to talk you through the subject. Then again you are not reading what some of the others have posted anyway.
But heres a point.Contary to your expressed belief Co2 levels have been higher. The IPCC is a political body not a scientific one.True it has scientists toeing the party line,mainly because they need to keep their funding,but it is political. And please,no more of this type of guff

Does it feel better to deny this and pretend that this is a natural occurance that we can't do anything about? Does it make you feel better to to protect the oil and coal industries industries?

[wmiddlemas]

Please, I have heard enought of right wing rants to last a lifetime. You still haven't addressed the basic question of: given that carbon causes global warming (everyone agrees to that) and human activity pours carbon into the environment how is possible that we are not causing climate warming ? With that I will sign off, this is a one way dialogue...l might as well be talking to a parrot.

[forfismum]

But why are you going away? We have not discussed on the medieval warm period and hansens aversion to it.Anyway we should have been discussing climate in the proper threads.I am puzzled as the where you got this idea

given that carbon causes global warming (everyone agrees to that)

everyone?

[Windguy]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Where did you get that lot from?

Yeah, where did you get that from wmiddlemas, your information is a bit old and dated now, it's worse than what you said.

i.e. 380ppm CO2, methane 750 to 1750ppb, pop 6.6 billion. Pop growth is decreasing but CO2 emissions growth is increasing. The wealth of the world is a far more direct indicator of emissions growth.

Our biggest problem why everything is coming to a head, because we don't know how to use our resources the most efficient way possible. We could produce 80 times more food per land area with the only added cost is infrastructure costs. 20 cents per bowl of cornflakes can be achieveable again without resorting to population reductions.

Also, give women equal rights the world over and the population levels will go backwards naturally.

[wmiddlemas]

Ok, tell me about the medieval warming period ! I want to know about it and Hansen's aversion to using it in his data.

[wmiddlemas]

You know I agree with you in a way - that wealth and emerging middle classes in China and India are a better indicator of Carbon emissions. But I use population growth, becasue of all of the ancilliary issues involved, such as increased demands on fresh water and at the same time further water pollution, increased demands for food, for energy - all contributing to a more polluted world, and a reduced capacity of the planet to sustain all of the species on it. The impact of population is directly related to global warming, but the emerging middle class of the developing countries is a more direct contributor.

In any case, everything is inter-related so we have to talk in a global sense. I am interested to know what technology exists that would permit us to produce 80 times more food per the land area that we are using now. Already, the mega agricultural methods in use today in the United States are not sustainable. Our methods use too much petroleum, ruin the soil, use too much water, are very vunerable to disease and are brutal and inhumane to the animals that we eat.