Climate Emergency

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.

This isn’t directed at you Bob but I think there’s a lot more to that last paragraph. We’ve faced unprecedented temperature levels and we’re reckoning with wildfires at rates and in areas we’ve never had them before. It’s essentially impossible to claim the world isn’t warming up while the midlands burn, but make no mistake, the 3% dissenters stuff is still very much climate change denial, it’s just gone to its next line of retreat. Claiming that the causes are being incorrectly reported, it’s cyclical or going after the people pointing it out with nonsense attacks is specifically to stop there being a useful conversation about making changes that might arrest the problem. As a society it’s complacent for us to think we’re past the stage of climate change denial, it’s just adapted as any virus does

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.

It is a fact that the main driver of climate change is down to greenhouse gases, and in 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry.

https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/

It's been known that since the 1820s, that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, when French mathematician proposed that the Earth's atmosphere acts as an insulating layer, trapping heat. The first experimental proof of CO2's warming effect was demonstrated in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foot, who demonstrated that CO2 significantly increases the temperature of air compared to dry air. Many other scientists have been able to prove it in experiments.

I've already said in an earlier post that the oil companies knew decades ago that their products were very likely to cause global warming and the kind of climate change that has brought the extreme weather that is now being experienced all over the world. Their own scientists knew this to be true. The oil companies, like the tobacco companies, sought to play down and hide the truth about their products.

I left school in 1975 , but I knew then that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, though at that time it was taught that without CO2, the planet would be too cold for most life on Earth. It was later that I came to realise that a balance is needed and the increase of CO2 of 150% since the start of the Industrial Revolution has upset that balance and is causing excessive  warming. The science on greenhouse gases is not something new.

The population increase is certainly a factor, but it is the industrialised countries of the northern hemisphere have been mainly responsible for CO2 production and there pop growth rate is slowing. Countries in the southern hemisphere where population has been growing faster, are still producing less CO2 than the north.

Other factors may well be contributing to global warming, but CO2 is the main driver if climate change. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming 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. 

Sadly there are many other contributing factors too, we do far more damage to our planet than just burning fossil fuels and we don’t seem too interested in stopping either.

I certainly agree that we are doing a huge amount of damage to every living thing on the planet, but the biggest peril we face is climate change, other than perhaps mad world leaders that are continually waging war.

Whilst they are clearly linked, as one causes the other, I think water scarcity is going to be a much bigger and faster hitting issue than the climate itself. 

ME14addick said:

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.

It is a fact that the main driver of climate change is down to greenhouse gases, and in 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry.

https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/

It's been known that since the 1820s, that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, when French mathematician proposed that the Earth's atmosphere acts as an insulating layer, trapping heat. The first experimental proof of CO2's warming effect was demonstrated in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foot, who demonstrated that CO2 significantly increases the temperature of air compared to dry air. Many other scientists have been able to prove it in experiments.

I've already said in an earlier post that the oil companies knew decades ago that their products were very likely to cause global warming and the kind of climate change that has brought the extreme weather that is now being experienced all over the world. Their own scientists knew this to be true. The oil companies, like the tobacco companies, sought to play down and hide the truth about their products.

I left school in 1975 , but I knew then that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, though at that time it was taught that without CO2, the planet would be too cold for most life on Earth. It was later that I came to realise that a balance is needed and the increase of CO2 of 150% since the start of the Industrial Revolution has upset that balance and is causing excessive  warming. The science on greenhouse gases is not something new.

The population increase is certainly a factor, but it is the industrialised countries of the northern hemisphere have been mainly responsible for CO2 production and there pop growth rate is slowing. Countries in the southern hemisphere where population has been growing faster, are still producing less CO2 than the north.

Other factors may well be contributing to global warming, but CO2 is the main driver if climate change. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming said:

ME14addick said:

Stu_of_Kunming 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. 

Sadly there are many other contributing factors too, we do far more damage to our planet than just burning fossil fuels and we don’t seem too interested in stopping either.

I certainly agree that we are doing a huge amount of damage to every living thing on the planet, but the biggest peril we face is climate change, other than perhaps mad world leaders that are continually waging war.

Whilst they are clearly linked, as one causes the other, I think water scarcity is going to be a much bigger and faster hitting issue than the climate itself. 

As you say they are inextricably linked, the warming climate is causing droughts and floods. Japan has experienced that only recently, with temperatures of 42C, followed a couple of weeks later by devastating floods. 

Where we have rivers running through many different countries, one country building dams to create their own supply can affect others further downstream, this can lead to tension and wars.

Add in pollution, huge data centres, nonsensical use of AI on top of rising temperatures and natural disasters and it’s a pretty bleak picture 

bobmunro said:

ME14addick said:

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.

It is a fact that the main driver of climate change is down to greenhouse gases, and in 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that 89% of global CO2 emissions came from fossil fuels and industry.

https://www.clientearth.org/latest/news/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/

It's been known that since the 1820s, that CO2 has a warming effect on the planet, when French mathematician proposed that the Earth's atmosphere acts as an insulating layer, trapping heat. The first experimental proof of CO2's warming effect was demonstrated in 1856 by Eunice Newton Foot, who demonstrated that CO2 significantly increases the temperature of air compared to dry air. Many other scientists have been able to prove it in experiments.

I've already said in an earlier post that the oil companies knew decades ago that their products were very likely to cause global warming and the kind of climate change that has brought the extreme weather that is now being experienced all over the world. Their own scientists knew this to be true. The oil companies, like the tobacco companies, sought to play down and hide the truth about their products.

I left school in 1975 , but I knew then that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, though at that time it was taught that without CO2, the planet would be too cold for most life on Earth. It was later that I came to realise that a balance is needed and the increase of CO2 of 150% since the start of the Industrial Revolution has upset that balance and is causing excessive  warming. The science on greenhouse gases is not something new.

The population increase is certainly a factor, but it is the industrialised countries of the northern hemisphere have been mainly responsible for CO2 production and there pop growth rate is slowing. Countries in the southern hemisphere where population has been growing faster, are still producing less CO2 than the north.

Other factors may well be contributing to global warming, but CO2 is the main driver if climate change. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

You don't need to convince me - I'm already in the 97% camp as I stated very clearly in my post. 

You don't change peoples' entrenched views by slamming them with an 'irrefutable fact' - all that achieves is deeper entrenchment. You educate, persuade and hopefully convince - nuance rather than a sledgehammer. 

Global population growth is almost certainly the cause of global warming - burning fossil fuels to the extent we do is a consequence of that cause.

Some people do need it to be explained how it works, how else do you educate them?. It's incredibly simple science.

Social media is awash with denials and alternative theories that have been de-bunked, certainly a far bigger proportion of the public than the 3% of dissenting scientists.

We would be in a much better position to do something about it, if there were greater consensus.  It makes me mad the amount of outright lies that people are posting and flippant statements like, it's summer or I survived 1976 or we are being sprayed to control us or even that 'climate activists are setting fires all over the world to prove man made climate change'.

Our education system must be doing a bad job for so many to have such erroneous ideas. The fossil fuel industries have a lot to answer for by funding politicians, and swamping social media with outright lies.

ken_shabby said:

The lack of water is already showing signs of snowballing problems. It was reported in some news outlets today that Hungary are going to restrict the use of nuclear power as the dimi ishing water levels of the Danube River mean they don't have enough to operate the reactors.

Wow, just a day after we were told nuclear is the way to go.

charltonkeston said:

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. 

Chipper, you are an absolute master of forum replies, I have over the years come to admire how, without being too wordy or really rude to people, you have an ability to insert a phrase that will be aimed loosely at an individual  or a group or may not be aimed at all. Often a completely vague comment or sometimes not, gets inserted into your replies.  Your replies often leave people hanging, wanting more from you but you leave it there and people hanging for you to elaborate, which you seldom do. 
Anyway a few pages back you wrote that your mother said people swear through ignorance, I don't necessarily agree with that, your mother was completely wrong, like you are on this thread about climate change I think the more likely....  

Just caught up with this. Thanks for the compliment you are almost right. There are several posters in a little club who think they are experts on every subject who dismiss anything that anyone else says. Their actions are usually hypocritical to their own views. They have an opinion just like everybody else. The shear arrogance of some is quite astonishing.

Just look at the last few days where a couple of decent posters had the audacity to air strong and good views. They will not return as the know alls rounded on them. They try to justify their behaviour by quoting what THEY call facts that are 99% of the time are Google or A1 generated.  I can't stand the bullying some posters get if they don't share or have a different view. 

My mother God bless her was always right,  and particularly about swearing. Yes in some cases it's inoffensive but one particular poster is abusive and can't say a sentence without putting the F word and C word in. Usually poking their nose in to someone else's business. 

You are not wrong no-one really knows my view, and when I did express an opinion., I got bombarded with a question that had no relation to my original post. And the pack as always dived in. And you are right if someone demands an answer I leave them hanging and throw a curved ball back in. Nothing annoys them more. 

There are also some posters who I will never reply too for historical reasons, one example being sympathetic to terrorists. and that often gets misinterpreted that I don't have an answer etc. 

Now that everyone is the way to give someone a roasting without being offensive. Cheers Keston. Loved it.

Good luck mate. 

I hate that this subject has become political. It affects everybody, right and left. I think we are doomed. We can argue whether certain actions will work or not but not doing anything won't work.

Chizz said:

Chippycafc said:

charltonkeston said:

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. 

Chipper, you are an absolute master of forum replies, I have over the years come to admire how, without being too wordy or really rude to people, you have an ability to insert a phrase that will be aimed loosely at an individual  or a group or may not be aimed at all. Often a completely vague comment or sometimes not, gets inserted into your replies.  Your replies often leave people hanging, wanting more from you but you leave it there and people hanging for you to elaborate, which you seldom do. 
Anyway a few pages back you wrote that your mother said people swear through ignorance, I don't necessarily agree with that, your mother was completely wrong, like you are on this thread about climate change I think the more likely....  

Just caught up with this. Thanks for the compliment you are almost right. There are several posters in a little club who think they are experts on every subject who dismiss anything that anyone else says. Their actions are usually hypocritical to their own views. They have an opinion just like everybody else. The shear arrogance of some is quite astonishing.

Just look at the last few days where a couple of decent posters had the audacity to air strong and good views. They will not return as the know alls rounded on them. They try to justify their behaviour by quoting what THEY call facts that are 99% of the time are Google or A1 generated.  I can't stand the bullying some posters get if they don't share or have a different view. 

My mother God bless her was always right,  and particularly about swearing. Yes in some cases it's inoffensive but one particular poster is abusive and can't say a sentence without putting the F word and C word in. Usually poking their nose in to someone else's business. 

You are not wrong no-one really knows my view, and when I did express an opinion., I got bombarded with a question that had no relation to my original post. And the pack as always dived in. And you are right if someone demands an answer I leave them hanging and throw a curved ball back in. Nothing annoys them more. 

There are also some posters who I will never reply too for historical reasons, one example being sympathetic to terrorists. and that often gets misinterpreted that I don't have an answer etc. 

Now that everyone is the way to give someone a roasting without being offensive. Cheers Keston. Loved it.

Good luck mate. 

"bombarded with a question"

DaveMehmet said:

When I left the house this morning the ground was covered with wet stuff. Not sure what it was or where it came from but was everywhere. Very strange.

Was it semen?

Talk about personal choices, it’s called practice what you preach. Don’t waffle on about climate change every time it goes above 28 degrees and say “we need to change and do more” yet do nothing and go against everything you say.