Climate Emergency

Stig said:

Chippycafc said:

It usually a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question, 4 times, after you've given the answer the first time, that they and their cohorts  have a major issue understanding basics. 

It's also a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question about resources when the topic in the box was about people, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics. 

Especially after the second time of asking you tell them you are under no obligation to answer anything. Again not understanding of basics. 

And when that happens it's best to assume all and move on. 

It's usually a fair assumption that when someone repeatedly asks for information that they either can't find what you say you've sent or can't understand it. The best communicators work on the basis that in an adult world such problems are down to the sender and do their very best to set matters straight.

The fuss and blister you've made suggests to me that you don't want to answer because you know that if you do your position won't stand up to scrutiny. It would have been far easier for you to answer Emmy nicely than to put up a fight about it. Come on, it's a forum, why are you frightened of responding nicely?

Chippycafc said:

Stig said:

Chippycafc said:

It usually a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question, 4 times, after you've given the answer the first time, that they and their cohorts  have a major issue understanding basics. 

It's also a fair assumption that when someone asks you a question about resources when the topic in the box was about people, that they and their cohorts have a major issue understanding basics. 

Especially after the second time of asking you tell them you are under no obligation to answer anything. Again not understanding of basics. 

And when that happens it's best to assume all and move on. 

It's usually a fair assumption that when someone repeatedly asks for information that they either can't find what you say you've sent or can't understand it. The best communicators work on the basis that in an adult world such problems are down to the sender and do their very best to set matters straight.

The fuss and blister you've made suggests to me that you don't want to answer because you know that if you do your position won't stand up to scrutiny. It would have been far easier for you to answer Emmy nicely than to put up a fight about it. Come on, it's a forum, why are you frightened of responding nicely?

It's a fair assessment Stig for people to understand the basics that you are not going to repeat your answer when you've already done it to my satisfaction  if you don't like the answer that's tough. Be an adult and move on. The question that was asked bore no relation to the original posters view. Why this individual was asking me I have no idea. Trouble making in my view. 

I can stand any scrutiny,  had it for years here and then they get abusive as you well know. As demonstrated by rocky rad. And who am i facing scrutiny from, people who Google and post A1 generated posts all day long, who for some bizarre reason think their climate experts, and are supposed to be working from home Mmmm. 

I have no fuss and blister about anything. I have replied the same number of times as I have been asked,  and now others are poking their nose in and making a big fuss about nothing. 

So just for you I won't answer anymore questions on this particular issue. 

hoof_it_up_to_benty said:

Thames Water are utterly f***ing useless. Rather than replace aging infrastructure they just try to fix leaks which invariably are followed by a fresh leak a short distance away. 

Privatising water was a truly idiotic idea and yet we continue to live with this farce.

I don't like being called a bully and I try always to be polite and never to be aggressive to any other poster, so decided to look back through the exchanges and my attempts to get Chippy to answer my question. My conclusion  is that he has never actually answered the question.

This is the post that started the exchanges, I won't use the OP's name as it's not relevant:

14/08/2026 

I believe climate change is real but one of the main causes for me is an ever increasing world population. 
I have posted this before and some on here try and say it's not a major factor. I disagree 

1960.   3 billion 
1970.   3 7 billion 
1980.  4.45 billion 
1990.   5.3 billion 
2000.   6.1 billion 
2010.   7.2 billion 
2020.   8.3 billion. 

The problem on here is if you have a different opinion as to the causes of climate change to some of you , you get heavy criticism. 
A few days ago someone who posts regularly on here labeled people blaming a rise in the population as neo fascists. 
Well i suppose I must be one then because I firmly believe the more the world's population increases the greater our need for ever more water, food, energy and everything else. 

This is the reply that @Chippycafc gave to the original poster: 

Great post mate.
Its been the same for years mate as you know. Its now the same little troupe on a few threads. Some must have brains like medicine balls such is their great depth of so called knowledge  (ie google).
Dare anyone see things in a different way particularly based on their own life experience out come the usual insults as demonstrated on this page alone.

My first question: 

As you agree with X's claim that climate change is real and that the big increase in population is to blame, What is it that you think humans are doing that causes climate change?

This is Chippy's reply

Think its fairly obvious. The more people there are the more our natural resources are going to be consumed. The movement of those over populated areas and the fact that some nations dont understand birth control is further added to that. As we are havng to provide food, energy to our over populated planet then obviously areas have to made free to house wll thesepeole.
But what would help is those who want everyone else to do something and not them. As demonstrated on the previous pages...

My reply: 

I absolutely agree that more humans will use more of the earth's resources. The date in the year when humans use more resources than the earth can provide, gets earlier each year.

Your reply doesn't make it obvious as to how that changes the climate. Which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real?

Chippy said:

I agreed with the numbers. And I answered it. Thanks but I will choose what whom and when I respond. As others do.

There were several more exchanges in which I asked the question, which of those resources that humans are using, causes the climate change that you agreed with X is real? I have never received an answer.

Of course Chippy is free to choose whether to answer or not, but bearing in mind this is an important thread on the biggest threat we all face, an answer would be appreciated.

I can only surmise, that despite saying the original post was 'great' Chippy didn't really mean that.  He may have agreed with the numbers, which he did confirm, but gave no other answer.

blackpool72 said:

I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post. 
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question. 
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources. 
He never went into great detail,  but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle. 
More people means an ever increasing need for food,  water,  power ,housing,  infrastructure and everything else. 

Radostanradical said:

TD_Addick said:

Radostanradical said:

Chippycafc said:

ME14addick said:

Chippycafc said:

cantersaddick said:

In case ol' Chipolata is wondering I have taken the train to the valley today as I always do, even though it would have been much quicker and cheaper to drive. 

If your that concerned about the environment you could have walked or got an eco bus from where you live. But you didnt as its all fake. 

We still don't know what it is you think that humans do, that causes climate change. It's quite a simple question.

We know that you believe that the increase in the population is the cause, because you agreed with another poster on that, so you must have a reason for believing . We would really like to know. 

Whose we and when were you put in charge   a very arrogant stance if I must say so. I have answered you 4 times now. 

Wonder how many of you tree huggers bothered turning up at the valley yesterday. Clearly some didn't bother to keep their carbon foot print down. 

Dont worry we will keep the club going for you. 

So we’ve got Mr. “Hardman” over here puffing his chest out with “Whose we and when were you put in charge”. Mate, you sound like a drunk uncle at Christmas who just discovered the caps lock key. “Whose we”? That’s the big power move? Grammar just tapped out and left the building.

Then you try to flex with “I have answered you 4 times now.” Congrats, you can count to four. I am actually suprised by that revelation. You’re acting like you’ve been interrogated by the FBI when in reality you’re just recycling the same weak lines in a forum thread.

And oh boy, here comes the killer insult: “tree huggers.” Wow. Cutting edge stuff. Did you dig that out of a 1993 talk radio rant? You’re trying to sound like some rugged outlaw, but let’s be real, if you had to say this face‑to‑face, you’d be sweating through your shirt and praying nobody calls your bluff. Online you’re a lion, in person you’d fold faster than an ironing board.

Finally, the cherry on top: “Don’t worry we will keep the club going for you.” Translation: “Please notice me, I’m desperate to feel important.” You’re not the savior of the valley, mate, you’re just another guy cosplaying behind a keyboard.

What are you even talking about “cosplay behind a keyboard”  “fold faster than an ironing board” like a failed rapper/Scientist who has lost his mind. 

Nah see thats dissapointing, I expected better. Try again make it a bit more biting.

Call me a lefty or something pal. Just put a bit more into it.

Stu_of_Kunming said:

ME14addick said:

blackpool72 said:

I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post. 
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question. 
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources. 
He never went into great detail,  but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle. 
More people means an ever increasing need for food,  water,  power ,housing,  infrastructure and everything else. 

The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.

Almost all of them. 

bobmunro said:

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

ME14addick said:

blackpool72 said:

I won't quote you post ME14addick as it's a long post. 
But in fairness to chippy he did answer your question. 
He said an increase in population means we need to use more of the earth's natural resources. 
He never went into great detail,  but he didn't need to.
More and more of the Rain forest for instance is being lost year on year to give farmers extra room to farm cattle. 
More people means an ever increasing need for food,  water,  power ,housing,  infrastructure and everything else. 

The fact that with an ever growing population, we use more resources isn't in doubt, that's obvious, but what is it that humans are doing that causes climate change? Perhaps I should have said 'which' of the resources that we are using is/are causing climate change.

Almost all of them. 

The main cause of climate change is greenhouse gases, anything else is minimal. Greenhouse gases emitted by burning of fossil fuels being the main driver. 

You state it as fact - there are very few absolute truths. It is true that 97% of published climate scientists conclude that global warming to the extent we are seeing is man made - with 70% being due to fossil fuels emissions and 30% non-fossil fuel emissions (agriculture, rain forest/vegetation decline). The 3% dissenters claim cyclical climate changes are the primary cause and that the earth is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 levels than most believe. I'm with the 97%!

As blackpool stated, the global population growth from 1 billion in 1800 to 8 billion now (and expected to rise to 10 bill before leveling off/small decline) is the main driver in the extraction and burning of fossil fuels and agriculture growth. Who knows, if the world's population had maybe just doubled from 1800 instead of eight-fold the amount of fossil fuels needed would be significantly less and perhaps wouldn't have lead to CO2 being out of kilter.

However, even the 3% dissenters agree that the earth is warming at unprecedented levels i.e. none (apart from maybe the odd nut job) is a global warming denier.