climate change

Here is an alternate view on climate change and global warming from Dr. Roy Spencer Phd, climatologist, author, Nasa scientist and meteorologist. www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/ .




  

I'm more concerned about the toxic substances we put into our environment, either deliberately through crop sprays, exhausts, wars, or accidental spillage through manufacturing mistakes and our recent floods.

Some of these accidental pollution releases could happen by "climate change" weather events, earthquakes, meteorite strikes. I wonder how long it would take the world to cleanse itself of pollutants? If there was mass destruction of some kind, no one would be monitoring storage of chemicals. Any survivors would have a hard time knowing where spilled chemicals had ended up.

Whether humans are contributing to "climate change" or not, I think many problems would be solved by a much lower world population. No idea how that could be achieved in a humane way, though.

rosebud , that's my take on it too. Whether or not climate change occurs or not, practically all the contributing factors to it are bad in some other way anyhow.

My take on this subject is the planet is experiencing a period of changing weather. I don't know if the changes are part of the natural weather cycle or induced by human activity. The cause is irrelevant to me. All I care about is how changing weather might impact on me.

Nothing I do will change the cause if it is human related. Nothing 26 million Australians do will change the cause if 3 billion Indians and Chinese don't get on board as well. So I don't bother trying to change the cause.

As a good little prepper I just plan for any impact. I don't live in a flood zone. I don't live in a bushfire zone. When I move to my coastal acreage I will have a fire bunker and firefighting equipment ( I have most of the equipment already). My houses and cabins all have wall and ceiling insulation. I have plenty of land and water to grow my own food. I feel confident I have done enough.

I am a believer, but roll my eyes when people try and make predictions. particularly well into the future. you just cant model that and its embarrassing when scientists attempt to. I really dont care if its human influenced, I dont think we are doing enough to adapt to change, and that quality is what got us to here. There is no more natural selection or sexual selection forcing us to adapt, we must consciously do it.

I dont think we need less people, I think we need less undeveloped countries/people. If we are serious about the issue, thats the biggest hurdle. getting africa and asia to the first world.

I would like to see culture setting for the deep future of humanity. its pretty clear democracy is the best political system we have been able to implement, but what about economic? religion? environmental?

I see us burning fossil fuels as a form of energy for transportation as a massive waste of future resources. I see feedlots and industrial farming as not sustainable and unnecessarily cruel.

a changing climate may mean less arible land, and we either need to make that land available and ready now, or change our crops. We need to stop polluting now, as an immediate health impact, not as a future monolitic unmeasurable thing. we need to provide energy to the 3rd world so that they can join the first world. These are the things we should be doing, not trying to get people to eat bugs.

I too don't trust anything the Govts say, follow the money......






Cartoon law no 2: Any body in motion will tend to remain in motion until solid matter intervenes suddenly.
Whether shot from a cannon, or in hot pursuit on foot, cartoon characters are so absolute in their momentum that only a telephone pole or an outsize bolder retards their forward motion absolutely. Sir Isaac Newton called this sudden termination of motion the "stooges surcease".

[quote author="Morgo" source="/post/94528/thread"
Now as for taking countermeasures, I'm all for reducing pollution and cleaner energy supply (if it weren't for the same "activists" we would have had better cleaner energy supply decades ago) however I see much of what is happening today as a great rush, at the expense of the average person, to push this new agenda too far too soon before the systems are in place to support it which will catch many people out as has been evidenced all around the world. [/quote]

Nothing ever works that way with tech advances... there is massive destruction for new creation. it never moves slowly and it is never fair.

one thing that I dont understand with the climate change agenda (and as I have said, I am a believer) is that we are going to kill people now through the extreme policies pushed by some actors to potentially save people that dont even exist yet? seems a bit rough on the relatively poor people now, and I say that as its the poor who always pay for it. So we are guaranteed the bad outcome in advance of a potential bad outcome.

The population thing is funny to think about. netherlands is a net agricultural exporter with 508 people per km2. we have 3 people per km2. I understand that we are not measuring the same things agriculturally or even with land use, but the supporting capacity for more people on earth is there. imagine we went to 6 people per km2, let alone 508. its hard to comprehend, but on a long enough time scale, who knows where we could get. (this all assumes we dont get wiped out by some threat before reaching this potential)


The issue of population is really a waste management issue, particularly around pollution.

we need to charge companies the cost of pollution. these unpaid for externalities provide profit for the companies, while we pay the cost from a degraded environment and health issues. if it cost money to pollute the environment, then we would see less pollution.

we could also see more industry, as if you had to pay the disposal cost of every good even down to packaging, then there would be a market to recover that value at the end of its use. if it costs say 300 dollar to dispose of a fridge, that money should be paid at the point of sale and held until the end of the tvs life, where a resource recovery facility could get that 300 plus interest accrued to recycle it. no more dumping old fridges on the side of the road. same thing could be scaled to all products and outputs including emissions.

It’s mesmerising!!
That’s time I will never get back!!