Climate Change

The following from "Population Matters" can explain better than me. Please, please read it if you care what happens on this planet:

www.populationmatters.org/about/policy-goals/our-policy-goals/

Didn't shoot you, carbon; I shot the idea of excessive authoritarianism in government. I'd like to ask you the same question that anagram has asked.

Act in what way, carboncareful? What action could be taken, urgently, to address the problem of overpopulation, in your view?

I'm not a violent person!

Just because I say it could happen does not mean I am in favour of it. The whole point of my argument is that we need to act soon in order to avoid coercion. Please don't shoot the messenger.

What's that Latin tag about quis custodiet etc: who guards the guardians?

The problem for me is who coerces and who or what gives the coercers the right to coerce?

Orwell, Animal Farm, 1984, anyone? Hitler? Stalin? Pol Pot?

I'd rather have the freedom to be obliterated by some natural disaster than live under that kind of regime. I don't believe that the end justifies the means if the means are unethical.

No, lots of people are in denial about overpopulation too. To the extent that even organisations like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace etc were scared to bring it up for fear of putting people off. I know this because I wrote to them a while back. I think its getting through more now especially since David Attenborough spoke out and joined "Population Matters"
I think the possibility of coercion can be looked at in another way. If we do not sort thinks out in a humanitarian ethical way pretty soon, then coercion will inevitably happen whether we like it or not.

In America the right wing have poisoned people into believing all sorts of rubbish about the overpopulation lobby wanting to kill off old people and even tried to make out Obama was in favour of this and other horrible ideas. If ever there was a conspiracy it is the one to discredit Obama.

(don't know what you mean by scientific freedom?)

Do we want to end up like Chinai?

Not to mention scientific freedom.

carbon, you say "we have to convince ALL people, rich or poor, that overpopulation is a large part of our collective problem - and everybody's responsibility".

Don't you think this is what nearly everyone (excepting certain church leaders) is trying to do already? I think we simply have to accept that it is a slow process if it is done in an ethical way. The alternative is some kind (or, worse, several kinds) of coercion, which would be wrong. It must be a process that works through education and democratic freedom.

jeni We still have elephants in England - only now they are in the room !!

jeni We still have elephants in England - only now they are in the room !!

I know that bringing people out of poverty reduces the birth rate, if not the population. Trouble is that there just are not the resources (or the will I think) on this planet for us to be able to bring that many humans up to decent living standards. Also there is not time for us to rely on this. Of course we have to improve peoples lives but at the same time we have to convince ALL people, rich or poor, that overpopulation is a large part of our collective problem - and everybody's responsibility. And that it is URGENT.

Climate change (whatever the cause) will necessitate people migrating around the planet when crops fail; floods etc.) and this will cause terrible hardship and distress (can't think of a better word) to all of us. The more people there are, the less room for manoeuvre. Also, the more people there are the greater risk of fighting over resources (eg water).

Sorry to hear you've been ill, carbon, and I hope you will feel better soon.

Thanks for the Geographic link. I had a look. Interesting, but based on faulty models yet again, unfortunately. Only time will tell if the models are right. So far they've not done very well.

I agree that the ideal would be planet Earth with fewer people living comfortable and undamaging lives. I suspect that most, if not all of the people who think about these things would agree on that. How to achieve it is the problem. The only thing that seems to be certain, judging from experience of what has already happened (the whys and wherefores), is that increasing people's wealth (bringing them out of poverty) is what reduces birth rates. Takes a while but I think that's what we have to do to prolong human existence on this planet — always supposing some bloody great meteor doesn't finish us off in the meantime.

Once again, hoping you regain full health as soon as poss.

Sorry, been ill, still am, so not happy sitting at computer.

Re Antarctic sea ice. I suggest you all have a look at:

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/08/100816-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment/

National Geographic quite a reliable source I would have thought but if you google "Antarctic sea ice cover" you will find lots of articles explaining the paradox.
Its easy to keep picking out discrepancies but we all know how complicated it all is. But real scientists try to work out what is happening - they don't just say "I don't believe.....whatever" That means absolutely nothing. You have to provide evidence.

Re Lovelock, he has always been a maverick, always been in favor of nuclear power. He does not really "care" what happens, because he knows the Earth will sort things out (as a lot of you keep saying) - but the thing is: how will the Earth sort things out? Lovelock gave the answers: it does not matter to planet Earth if humans die out, its not interested in humans, it just keeps balancing things out as it goes along: if there are too many of a species (humans) then wipe them out and let another species have a go..... if a species messes up parts of the planet then the planet fights back - with weather and suchlike. I think some of you think we can adapt - but its not the same as in the past when people could just move if things got bad (too hot, too cold, no food). We have drawn lines all over the place and don't allow movement of people, we round them up and call them refugees. Even the animals can't move about as they always have done.

I do know a lot of people who think we should just let it happen and hope the dolphins take over from us. Thats a lot better than being in denial. But I, personally think it beholds every one of us to at least try and preserve our species. But not to end up with an overpopulated planet with most people living in misery (don't know why I said "end up" because that how we are now.....). The only answer is a considerably reduced population living reasonable happy lives on a healthy planet - that is what I think we should strive for...

back to bed (don't worry I think the huge & horrible, yellow antibiotic tabs are starting to work - just 3 weeks of a nasty virus - they leave a horrible taste in my mouth which today I discovered is assuaged by chocolate.......must be getting better, I'll be back to chocolate & wine tonight I think.

Meanwhile the foundations of 1000 Danish offshore wind turbines are crumbling apparently

and

United Nations see natural gas (and fracking) as key to improving  the environment and helping the poor

Every day there is something new that tends to refute fears of alarming anthropogenic global warming. Here is a link to one of the things I came across today — about a study which found that Antarctic sea ice has actually been increasing lately. I had heard this before but not with a reference to back it up though global sea ice data is freely available from various sources.

Noting that "southern sea ice has shown modest increases and established new record ice coverage in the summer of 2008 by a wide margin," Pezza et al. conclude their study by rhetorically wondering how this "peculiar behavior" meshes with the theory of currently-unprecedented anthropogenic-CO2-induced global warming.

www.co2science.org/articles/V15/N25/C1.php

People who question the role of atmospheric CO2 in driving climate change are sometimes called "climate change deniers". This is an abuse of language and it used to derogate the questioners. What the questioners are questioning is how much changes in CO2 levels affect global climate. They are not questioning whether climate changes take place; these questioners are also the ones who talk of ice ages and warm periods in Earth's history. Here is a good article by Jo Nova about this Orwellian "language diversion tactic"

YES!

I agree. Don't think Bags is, either.
It's a pity that feelings run so high on this subject that they threaten to affect health. Surely an open mind is preferable?

I don't think anyone is arguing against sensible measures to preserve earths reserves or people's money. Onl against the theory that man's activity is causing a rise in global temperatures! There is ample evidence that the earth has undergone numerous warming and cooling periods in its history, well before man came on the scene!

Before my time, jeni.

Prehistoric! And sabre toothed tigers! All well before man's "global warming"

Did we? When?