Jump to content

United Nations climate summit


NickP
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="tegwini"][quote user="Théière"][quote user="powerdesal"][quote user="tegwini"][quote user="gardengirl "]

Is it the drink, the food or the witty yawns that would attract you to the insomniacs club, Tegwini? Souns like an interesting programme; wonder if it can be watched again? [/quote]

Hi GG

Sorry, I couldn't tell you what it was called or what channel it was on-  I was in bed with the 6 ft hot water bottle who was snoring by then.

But, it was one of those  'Life' type documentaries.     They were able to deduce quite a lot from the geology and date some of the strata to 350 million years ago.  I looked for you on BBC iplayer, but could find nothing.  I did find this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_People_Can_Live_on_Planet_Earth/

This a David Attenborough programme.  He clearly thinks, as I do,  that the problem is  'Populution -' way too many people!   That's what this conference should be discussing - not encouraging governments to use this, as Nulab has for years, as a means of extra tax.  The world's population has tripled in the last few decades - scary, especially since the fasting growing populations are in countries which cannot feed themselves, hence many are desperate to move elsewhere, but especially to Europe.

Tegwini [/quote]

I can see me getting flamed for this, but what the heck...........

Way too many people + too many nuclear weapons in the World =                      Instant sunshine and a reduction in population.

[/quote]

That's what I posted, just in a more subtle way, which is unusual for me

[/quote]

Good grief Steve & Tpot!

But how will you control  the radiation fallout ?

Tegwini

[/quote]

Quick re-plan......Use neutron 'devices'. No fall out, no infrastructure damage just population reduction[6] [/quote]

Hi Steve

There is another way - in the tv programme listed above they pose solutions- one is for mass sterilisation. This, they tried in India

in the 70s. Some were forced into it.  They did a few million pa (7m in 1977 I think).  Lots of men on beds with painful bits- sad or wot ?

Sadly, some cultures won't accept this- especially the men. David  Attenborough was not optimistic about the world's future,

but is convinced that reducing the world's population is the solution.

Tegwini

ps    never thought I could ever quote like this !!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure they'd plump for that option PD.  Not enough outright kills - and who wants a lot of walking ghosts running around in a bad temper?  Safer and easier I would think to go down the thermobaric route.  Already practiced in Chechnya and Afghanistan to name just two places where some would wish to reduce the population drastically.[+o(]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To get back to less radical solutions for overpopulation I watched last night's Horizon programme the ultimate conclusion of which was that it was education that could lead to a reduced need for over breeding which ironically comes back to what has been known for many decades which is that population maintenance requires a 2.11 per couple birth rate, any more = population growth, any less = decline.

There is more than enough money sloshing around the world to provide ample education for all however those who have it or control it are selfish and lack the will or vision to to use it for such purposes.

Sadly, whilst we still demand the latest HD TV's in our living rooms and the latest registration number on our cars we too are guilty in our own small way.

This is the site referred to in the Horizon programme.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the solutions put forward previously were extremely radical, they are not quite as 'tongue in cheek' as many people may think (or hope).

It is reasonable to accept that there is a maximum limit to the number of people that the World can support, that limit may be reached soon, or it may be reached in some distant time, however, it is also reasonable to accept that if action is not taken soon then there will come a time when either:-

a. The World will suffer a dramatic pandemic which will naturally reduce the population to a sustainable level

or

b. Major conflicts will erupt across the globe to fight for natural resources, ie water, food, living space, minerals etc.

Item 'b' above will bring us full circle to the radical solutions referred to.

There are, inevitably, going to be some very nasty choices that have to be made. Compulsory sterilisation, euthanasia of the elderly, the infirm, the terminally ill etc etc. No-one  wants to think of these scenarios because they smack of the activities carried out by certain countries in the recent past.

Education regarding birth control is certainly a way of attempting to avoid those radical choices, unfortunately I am cynical enough to believe that such education will never happen. Given the World history of Nationalism, self interest and religious intolerance I fear that the major conflict route is the most likely. Such conflict(s) could of course lead on to item 'a' as well, especially if bio weapons get used.

Obviously I hope I am wrong but...............[:(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="pachapapa"]

Quote;

...

Tsunamis are caused by under-sea volcanic erruptions - usually: nought to do with weather.

...

The largest tsunami occurred in Southern Chile::::::no under sea volcanic eruption involved.

The best known in recent years affected Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Bangladesh and a few islands::::::::no undersea volcanic eruption involved.

Be grateful for citations with information on tsunamis provoked by undersea volcanic eruptions.

[/quote]

(1)An Undersea Earthquake - is the most common form of tsunami formation, typically generating the most destructive tsunamis.  The earth is constantly moving on large tectonic plates.  When these tectonic plates move past each other, collide and/or slide under one another (subduction), an earthquake results.  This is what happened with the recent tsunami that devastated Southern Asia.  Here, a massive earthquake in the Indian Ocean measuring 10.0 on the Richter scale jolted the seabed causing the sudden displacement of a very large volume of water.  The earthquake temporarily produces a fluctuation in the mean sea level of a specified area.  Waves quickly form as the displaced water tries to recapture equilibrium by filling the vacuum that was created.  It should be noted that not all earthquakes generate tsunamis.  Usually, it takes an earthquake with a Richter magnitude exceeding 7.5 to produce a destructive tsunami.

Happy now Mate?

If there is one thing I hate, its drive by snipers.................

If you look here, then you can bone up on the primary causes. HERE

Yes, a tsunami can be caused by any other form of land-based volcanic event: it can also be caused by meteorites plunging into the sea: or even an atomic explosion. However the FACT remain s that the vast majority of Tsunamis are caused by undersea volcanic events.

And despite what the Climate Changers and the BBC would have people believe, Greenhouse Effects, Climate Change, or whatever nice new buzzy words they come up with as real science casts much doubt onto dubious theories don't cause Tsunamis.

Which was my original point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Calm down Mickie!  No need to get so stressed!  If these theories about climate change are eventually found to be incorrect what's the worst that can happen?  More tax paid by some, maybe a little less pollution, maybe (as Quillan suggested,) oil supplies will last a bit longer. 

However, if the "Climate Changers" ([8-)]) prove to be correct... Well, even those who have the right to say "I told you so", will have more pressing concerns.  So, I guess, if anyone has a right to get snarky, it's those who think we're heading for complete destruction and instead of doing something about it, many people are just whinging about money, joking about suntans.  Fiddling while Rome burns I suppose...[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="buelligan"]

Calm down Mickie!  No need to get so stressed!  If these theories about climate change are eventually found to be incorrect what's the worst that can happen?  More tax paid by some, maybe a little less pollution, maybe (as Quillan suggested,) oil supplies will last a bit longer. 

However, if the "Climate Changers" ([8-)]) prove to be correct... Well, even those who have the right to say "I told you so", will have more pressing concerns.  So, I guess, if anyone has a right to get snarky, it's those who think we're heading for complete destruction and instead of doing something about it, many people are just whinging about money, joking about suntans.  Fiddling while Rome burns I suppose...[:D]

[/quote]

I'm not stressed, mate!

You see, the simple reality for this old bloke is that in order to solve any problem, we first have to define the scope of the problem.

Which as always, none of the great and good have done. They have leapt ahead shooting their separate and collective mouths off, latching on to "A Solution" proposed on the back of dodgy and suspect "Science".

And real science and engineering are simply not like this.

And at the same time, big money is rubbing its hands with glee, ready to put it to the little bloke once again.

Plus governments are happy they've found another excuse (As if they needed one) for more taxes: which they will just waste.

Trouble is also, the combination of governments and devious big biz will change the whole scope of people's lives, for the wrong reasons.

Now if the Climate Changers are indeed proved right (And so far their early forecasts have been all wrong!), we'll all be dead so what?

Study the ideas of the Club of Rome and the makeup of the Club of Rome!

The World does indeed suffer the impact of humanity on its ecology and various things need doing: trouble is, so far, they seem to be trying to solve the wrong problems and those which don't actually really exist!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mickie wrote;[quote]Now if the Climate Changers are indeed proved right (And so far their early forecasts have been all wrong!), we'll all be dead so what?[/quote]

My guess is Mickie...you don't work in advertising....[:D]  Joking apart though, I guess some folk really care whether they (and their friends and families) are dead or alive.  It really is an issue for them.  I imagine they would be reluctant to take advice from someone on a subject as potentially serious as this, who didn't view the survival of the human race as pretty jolly important.  But that's just my opinion and it'll prolly be proved wrong in the end![:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a simple old bloke.

If the reality is that human excessive use of fossil fuels has really caused this catostrophe, then governments playing posturing and power games will not alter the reality a jot.

Humanity as a species will simply die out: and old Mother Earth will relax, take a deep breath (of all the polluted air) doze for a few millenia and then will simply, over tens of millions of years (until the Sun goes out) rebuild what was and overcome the problems caused by the worst ever inhabitants of the globe: people.

To really believe that politicians can and could change the problem is frankly to believe in the tooth fairy!

If we were really serious about the problem dear old gordon (he's just offered the highest contribution at copenhagen: higher than Germany, btw, and Germany is now in the top 4 global economies and Britain slumbers and falls more behind) and his mates would have to ban cars, trucks, hols abroad, exec jets, plastic junk from asia (all those thousands of miles steamed by container ships bringing their cargos of rubbish plastic junk), central heating by oil and gas.

Supermarkets and all that packaging. Xmas lights. patio heaters; keep on going.

And the UK economy would be finished.

Chucking a few billion of conscience money to the Third World aint the answer, mate!

And how does the developed world, then prevent the developing nations fro  reproducing the exact same set of problems?

Say: "You must not do this!" To which they, understandably retort, "But you did! It's now our turn!"

Its just posturing old mate: just as was Obama's Nobel prize; good grief! The blokes only been in office for five minutes!

What has he actually really achieved?

Anyway, so who is going to pay the £500 million a hear Brown has pledged to Copenhangen?

MPS from their bloated expenses? Bankers from the ridiculous bonus?

Course not: as always old Joe Muggins will pay: the majority of the less well off British tax payers thats who!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny but I have just put the phone down on yet another company trying to sell me solar electricity, that must be the third this week and I have lost count of the number over the last couple of months. As I said in my other post, big business. Did you know that Amazon have got in on the act and you can order via the .com website a complete system for a reduced price of $299. OK just enough to drive a 60W bulb but it just goes to show they are all at it.

If, and I say if, climate change caused by man is correct and we are slowly killing the planet then to my mind all of us, our friends, children and even grand children will probably all be dead by natural causes before it seriously starts to bite.

I agree with Mickie's last post, it seems GB is very keen to give the tax payers money away to developing countries to make them 'cleaner'. I do suspect that the real thing that frightens them is countries like India who can produce a car for a couple of thousand pounds and what effect that will have on the global economy but more important on their own pockets and as Mickie says guess who gets to pay for it. I don't know whos more stupid really, them for thinking they can get away with it or us for letting them do it. It really makes me sick when I hear GB say these things (I believe the UK is going to increase its aid to developing countries according to the infamous recent 'pre-budget report', sort of double whammy really) and way he comes over on TV reminds me of that comedy sketch "well I've got considerably more money than you lot" except the UK doesn't, in fact its "got considerably LESS money than you lot".

Somebody said to me the other day having seen that advert about not using your cars to save the planet (the one where 'daddy' is reading a bed time story), why don't they give us all a free electric car and build a shed load of nuclear power stations to charge them. They could tax to death households with more than one car as well. They can take all our cars back and recycle them which in turn would help finance the exercise. Ah but then they would loose all those billions of pounds worth of income from flogging us all petrol. none of it when you sit down and think about it makes any sense whatsoever.

First they try and stop the rain forests from being cut down as they are the 'lungs' of the earth, quite right in my view. But then they tell them to start cutting them down again so crops can be grown to make bio fuel. This week they announce they are going to spend some more money to get them to stop again. Its like a blinking merry go round that goes round and round and nobody gets off.

The only consistent thing with regards to politicians and this subject is their inconsistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as we have a generation of school kids presently being brainwashed - and we do - it's in the syllabus, and Al Gore is part of that syllabus in many UK schools. 

We also have so many naive adults who swallow the 'science' knowing or understanding little about it.   We can expect GB et al to approve funding 'climate change reforms' via taxpayer's money, after all,   that is what they do - tax and spend.  And  so many make a living out of it including  the ridiculous industry selling 'green credits'.

 

But we need a healthy dose of scepticism, and some attempts to find out more and  NOT believe everything we read in the papers or see on TV.

Sad.

Tegwini

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="buelligan"]

I understand where you're coming from on this Mickie.  But I'm just one of those people who tends to believe that it's better to try to do right (even if you stand alone) and probably, fail, then it is to give up.

[/quote]

The road to Hell is paved by good intentions.

Sadly, it is too often the way with aid agencies too.

Let me pose a question: where and how will all these billions the EU is pledging to help third world countries be spent?

Carbon Credits have already been claimed, by "Green" non-existent Indian factories for example! And have been used to "offset" carbon created by Western plants. So, that's worked well then. For the indian ghost factory owner: who has been paid hard cash for a mirage!

Earlier in the year I had a good chat to a friend in France who is a marine bioligist and working on the ecology; mainly I gather on reefs and the life around them. She told me how the local government officials and police (Its Indonesia) are destroying the coral reefs, to use for building! They chop it out and grind it up, apparently.

Not the poor peasants: the government and their corrupt associates.

As Mr or Mrs Quillan has said (or could be miss or ms; sorry) they are churning out cars in India for peanuts. Same in China.

I have looked at the concept and background to this rather carefully: my background is engineering not science, however they are rather similar; a thing works or it doesn't in engineering.

Same in science.

The world has gone through climate changes since forever. No climate change "scientist" has yet explained how and why the medievial warm period contradicts their neat theories!

http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/summaries/rwpeuropecentral.php

http://www.br.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5277396&fSectionId=561&fSetId=662

If we honestly want to really change the way we humans damage the environment, then the changes necessary are so dramatic, the whole Western societies and economies have to change and our way of life destroyed.

Personally, as a start (Me being margianlly asthmatic), then I'd settle for better air quality.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="powerdesal"]Buelligan, its much better to actually do all the relevant analysis first, then do the planning properly, then try to do right. You stand much more chance of actually BEING right that way rather than the 'brave Horatio at the bridge' bit.
[/quote]  I couldn't agree more PD, BUT sometimes we do not have the luxury of time.  You could give similar advice to someone with a terminal diagnosis; We'll find the cure first - then you should commence showing symptoms...  Surely it is better to take a second (or umpteenth) opinion whilst using every asset we have to cure ourselves?

A lot of people seem to be very keen on good science (quite rightly!).  But, when you read their posts, the main thrust of their objections is more to do with politics, fear of being scammed, resentment over paying taxes.   Please consider the issue at the heart of this, not the scoundrels and charlatans queuing to get a slice of the action.  I am sure there are many on this forum who are pursuaded enough to profess a faith or religion (with probably less evidence than there is for climate change).  Would they accept that Christianity was undermined because of the Spanish Inquisition or Allah was not Great because of the London Bombings?  So please think about the central issue here; We have had a possible indication that our actions could be so profoundly damaging our planet that it could become uninhabitable.  Do we want to avoid that possibility?

Finally, I really do not want to argue about this.  I just think that each one of us has to consider this matter very, very seriously.  As I said earlier, if those who do not share my concerns are right - GREAT!  But what if they are wrong? [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

!960's The atom Bomb..... We are all going to die.

!980's Hole in the Ozone layer ....We are all going to die .

2000 Global warming ...we are all going to die .

Bomb never dropped ... Ozone layer hole closes now its decided its not threat .

Any idea what in the 2020's the next bogyman will be to scare the population with when global warming like the ozone layer is forgotten ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mickie Hill"]

Earlier in the year I had a good chat to a friend in France who is a marine biologist and working on the ecology; mainly I gather on reefs and the life around them. She told me how the local government officials and police (Its Indonesia) are destroying the coral reefs, to use for building! They chop it out and grind it up, apparently.

[/quote]

That's an interesting point Mickie, actually they are all interesting but that part in particular.

Another marine biologist with a similar train of thought said to me that the bad side of man's pollution is the destruction of the marine ecosystem, particularly the reefs, algae and plankton. as the world's largest surface is water if the levels of algae and plankton were at the levels of a few years ago the Co2 levels would be much lower as the marine environment photosynthesis Co2 back into the oxygen we humans need.

More here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Frederick"]!960's The atom Bomb..... We are all going to die. !980's Hole in the Ozone layer ....We are all going to die . 2000 Global warming ...we are all going to die . Bomb never dropped ... Ozone layer hole closes now its decided its not threat . Any idea what in the 2020's the next bogyman will be to scare the population with when global warming like the ozone layer is forgotten ?[/quote]

I subscibe to your thinking,

Never before in the face of human retail has so much been spent by so many for so little a solution to global warming! [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="buelligan"]

[quote user="powerdesal"]Buelligan, its much better to actually do all the relevant analysis first, then do the planning properly, then try to do right. You stand much more chance of actually BEING right that way rather than the 'brave Horatio at the bridge' bit.
[/quote]  I couldn't agree more PD, BUT sometimes we do not have the luxury of time.  You could give similar advice to someone with a terminal diagnosis; We'll find the cure first - then you should commence showing symptoms...  Surely it is better to take a second (or umpteenth) opinion whilst using every asset we have to cure ourselves?

A lot of people seem to be very keen on good science (quite rightly!).  But, when you read their posts, the main thrust of their objections is more to do with politics, fear of being scammed, resentment over paying taxes.   Please consider the issue at the heart of this, not the scoundrels and charlatans queuing to get a slice of the action.  I am sure there are many on this forum who are pursuaded enough to profess a faith or religion (with probably less evidence than there is for climate change).  Would they accept that Christianity was undermined because of the Spanish Inquisition or Allah was not Great because of the London Bombings?  So please think about the central issue here; We have had a possible indication that our actions could be so profoundly damaging our planet that it could become uninhabitable.  Do we want to avoid that possibility?

Finally, I really do not want to argue about this.  I just think that each one of us has to consider this matter very, very seriously.  As I said earlier, if those who do not share my concerns are right - GREAT!  But what if they are wrong? [:D][/quote]

The problem I have with your fine sentiments (And they are fine im not being sarky!), is that if the Climate Changers ARE right, after all, then none of the present actions are going to have any major effects!

We had Land Fill Tax; has this changed landfill? Not much; it just made the cost dearer!

Then we had airline tax on flights: have airlines changed their ways?

Not a bit!

And here we are not dealing with faith like religion: we're dealing with science; well in theory science!

On the basis of saving the planet the EU banned pearl bulbs: as from September: and forced us all to gradually use energy saving bulbs: which are useless in point of fact.

And further in point of fact, they contain mercury: and have to be disposed of properly or are a serious health hazard.

Yet right now, Britain is lit up for Christmas! And stores up and down the land are burning huge amounts of electricity with all their lights.

If we are going to save the planet and it is really under threat, then we have to completely change our lives: kill off 75% of the World's over-population and go back to an agricultural existance, where we use a bit of wood to heat our huts and cook our food and we must all grow our own food.

No more trucking green beans from Africa out of season. No more freezers.

All that is going to happen is all costs will rise: heating, food, transport, so the wealthy will simpl carry on as before but the less well off will again, pick up an unfair sharew of the load.

Whats new?

Trouble with your concept, for me, Beulligan, is that the reality is we can't change the situation, if the climate changers are correct.

We are already past the point of recovery.

Carbon capture is probably a false dream: the costs and complications are too enormous. Its having your cake and eating it too.

In othewr words simply go on as we are but do something technically clever to reverse the damage.

Well, to me that's like a magic fat pill: carry on eating to excess and take a pill to reverse the damage.

Oh if life could be that simple!

Of course, the answer to obesity is to take more excercise and stop eating too much.

And the answer to climate change caused by carbon is to stop causing carbon dioxide: but then how does society replace our fuels?

Instantly?

If government are going to throw shed loads of dosh around, then why weren't they chucking it into different energy systems years ago?

Why arent they right now?

Cos they will lose zillions in taxes if we stop using oil thats why!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Théière"][quote user="Mickie Hill"]

Earlier in the year I had a good chat to a friend in France who is a marine biologist and working on the ecology; mainly I gather on reefs and the life around them. She told me how the local government officials and police (Its Indonesia) are destroying the coral reefs, to use for building! They chop it out and grind it up, apparently.

[/quote]

That's an interesting point Mickie, actually they are all interesting but that part in particular.

Another marine biologist with a similar train of thought said to me that the bad side of man's pollution is the destruction of the marine ecosystem, particularly the reefs, algae and plankton. as the world's largest surface is water if the levels of algae and plankton were at the levels of a few years ago the Co2 levels would be much lower as the marine environment photosynthesis Co2 back into the oxygen we humans need.

More here.

[/quote]

Sorry Mate forgot to reply!

Yes, its very interesting.

My friend has lived there working on this for 20 years or so: not young, she must be knocking 50 and she's a master diver and her team dive the coral reefs smapling water temps, salt levels (Is that called salinity or something?) currents, sea levels and analise the chemicals in the water.

She reckons its possible the rising carbon dioxide changes are changing the seawater; possibly. As a scientist shes a neat lass. not arrogant she says "might" all the time which at least is very honest!

And at least she is out there at the sharp end not sat on her jacksie in East Anglia in some uni office bumping her gums about it!

Ive known about the plankton since I first heard about this years ago: and it stands to reason that if man chops down all the rain forests and poisons the plankton (Tankers are apparently the worst enemy here, when they wash out their tanks) then the atmosphere cannot regenerate properly.

All the western banks are guilty of destroying rain forest because they lent loads of dosh to places like brazil in the 1980s and then forced them to chop down forest to graze beef for US hamburgers. And after they have chopped down the rain forest and turned it into grazing after a few years it dies and will be like desert.

Then at the same time we keep using more cars and burning more oil and building more roads and big buildings.

So we make more pollution: and destroy the things like trees which turn the carbon back into oxygen.

Mad totally mad.

Sensible balance is what I look for: and actually doing something positive, rather than jetting off to saave the world conferences and poncing about in front of the cameras. And giving my tax money to third world countries where it will simply vanish into some head honchos Swiss bank account!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...