Climate change discussion

redfish

Verified User
I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 5% of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite
 
Last edited:
Hello and welcome redfish,

I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 55 of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

I'll be happy to address every one of your points as long as we can have an agreement to be polite. No down-talking to each other, OK? Mutual respect, or forget it.

That work for you?
 
I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 55 of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

Add to that:

Below is the composition of air in percent by volume, at sea level at 15 C and 101325 Pa.

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 2 to 3% of that area. Of the remaining land mass, about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas.

The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to 0.0314% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.
 
They say we are speeding it up now, that is their new talking point which is still stupid because all they want to do is push the problem down to another generation instead of dealing with it now and getting a head start on it.

Since they say they know what will happen why aren't they beginning preparations to deal with it like moving cities away from the coasts.

No matter what argument they use they still reveal themselves to be idiots.
 
It can be distilled down to this: our current habits and energy choices are not sustainable.

It's not really a big mystery. We're only about 200 years into the industrial revolution, and we've already lost significant habitat. We're in the middle of a mass extinction. The oceanic food supply is closer to the brink than most know.

Imagine another 200 years, without any changes?

I wish people would throw the AGW argument out the window. It's too polarizing, and ultimately, it doesn't even matter. We're making our planet unlivable.

It's the biggest issue of our day, but I have no optimism on it. Many of us can't even be bothered to wear a mask to protect our fellow citizens. We'll never make the sacrifices or changes that need to be made for sustainable living.
 
my number 11. above is the one I would like our liberals to address. If its about pollution, why isn't that enough?
 
It can be distilled down to this: our current habits and energy choices are not sustainable.

It's not really a big mystery. We're only about 200 years into the industrial revolution, and we've already lost significant habitat. We're in the middle of a mass extinction. The oceanic food supply is closer to the brink than most know.

Imagine another 200 years, without any changes?

I wish people would throw the AGW argument out the window. It's too polarizing, and ultimately, it doesn't even matter. We're making our planet unlivable.

It's the biggest issue of our day, but I have no optimism on it. Many of us can't even be bothered to wear a mask to protect our fellow citizens. We'll never make the sacrifices or changes that need to be made for sustainable living.



I think we all agree with you in general. But in the 1970s you libs were telling us that all the oil would be gone by the year 2000. Also in the 70s you told us that we were beginning a new ice age.

Europe has tried solar and wind and it has left them starving for energy. Nuclear works and is clean and safe when done right, why not push that?
 
I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that
2. man has never had anything to do with it
3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels
4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 5% of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%
5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years
6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil
7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck
8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels
9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?
10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?
11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone
12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives
13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

Why?

No matter how much is offered, documentation provided, you are going to respond with some obscure contrarian or singular study as if what they offer invalidates the preponderance of actual scientific evidence

Pointless, you are attempting to sell a false paradigm
 
I think we all agree with you in general. But in the 1970s you libs were telling us that all the oil would be gone by the year 2000. Also in the 70s you told us that we were beginning a new ice age.

Europe has tried solar and wind and it has left them starving for energy. Nuclear works and is clean and safe when done right, why not push that?

I'm very torn on nuclear. There are some long-term ramifications that no one has really addressed - with waste, and with the possibility of unmanned plants w/ a worse pandemic or global catastrophe. But I agree it's clean and is ready to expand now, unlike wind & solar.

Wind & solar - and other natural sources - can't be rushed. I support accelerated R&D for those, but they're not nearly ready to replace fossil fuels at the moment.

I really don't have any answers on this one. I just know what the problem is.
 
Hello redfish,

works for me, bring it on

Excellent. Thank you. My pleasure. Here goes:

I want the resident libs to respond to this with factual data if you have any

1. the climate of planet earth has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, ice cores and fossils prove that

Agreed. They also show that mass scale events can trigger climate change. The great oxygenation event which created the breathable atmosphere we take for granted was likely caused by an explosion of life forms which consumed CO2 and produced O2.

2. man has never had anything to do with it

Cannot agree. Humans are over-populating the Earth and changing much of it, including the climate. Every life-form which expands it's numbers to the extent of it's habitat affects that habitat.

3. the sun and earth's tilt of its axis control our climate, not use of fossil fuels

Disagree. The atmosphere is a big factor in the climate. We put things into the atmosphere, it affects the climate.

4. solar and wind and hydro make up around 55 of our energy use, they will never be capable of producing 100%

No, I don't think they make up 55% at all. Nowhere near that. Agreed that will never do 100% for the current population level. We need safe nuclear and we need to control our population growth.

5. The USA has drastically reduced pollution in the last 30 years

Agreed and disagreed. Air and water pollution have been decreased. Plastic and chemical pollution has increased.

6. It takes massive amounts of fossil fuel to produce solar panels and windmills. they are made of plastics and plexiglass which are made from oil

Agreed. We should further the science and look for more sustainable ways to get energy.

7. electric cars require recharging after 200 miles or so. you will never be able to drive across the country in an electric car or truck

Current limitations prevent long distance electric car travel, and also trailer towing. We need more science and engineering to solve those issues.

8. the electricity to recharge is produced mostly by fossil fuels

Agreed. Current technology offers no ready replacement for fossil fuels.

9. which of you will volunteer for the first night flight in a solar powered airplane?

Point well made.

10. If your goal is to stop pollution, why isn't that enough? why do you need an unproved link between pollution and climate?

That's not the goal at all. The goal is to create a more sustainable way to have our modern lives without destroying our habitat. It doesn't seem to be possible. Really, it would be a lot better if there were simply far fewer humans on the planet. Since we have no solution, we should agree to reduce our own numbers. Nobody has to die. All we have to do is drastically reduce the number of births. There has to be more meaning to life than simply reproducing. Religion is not the answer. Nearly all religions were created in ancient times when none of our current problems were a concern. Mostly they say go forth and multiply. Well, we did that. Now we have new issues we have to deal with. We should think about what the big picture is. We would like to leave the planet a better place for the next generation, but we are not really doing that. The more we try to advance, the worse it seems to get.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want about the cosmos and a creator. Everyone should be free to have their own faith. But we must agree that what we are doing is not workable, and that we have to change. We appear to be doomed if we keep doing what we are doing. Religions accept that, but I do not see why that has to be.

I think we need a powerful world government focused on human longevity and improving the human condition. We humans have a lot in common. We all have the same basic needs. Food, water, protection, security, social interaction. We have everything we need to address all of our concerns. We could eliminate starvation and poverty. We could raise the standard of living for every human on Earth, make everyone comfortable. Why all the fighting? It's just because people get attitudes. If we all simply recognize basic logic we could transform our existence and that of every human to come after us. If we created a world where everyone had what they needed there would be no reason for crime. Most of our problems come from people who really just need mental counseling. So, let's provide it! We have everything we need to solve the climate crisis, war, poverty, disease, species destruction, pollution, everything.

We live in such dark ages.

It's time for us to get advanced.

11. everyone on earth supports reducing pollution, everyone

That's fine, but people need to really open their eyes to the possibilities. We can do so much more.

12. be honest, this is not about pollution or climate, its about finding a way to control everyone's actions and lives

Well, sort of. We humans need to get far better organized. We could do so much more if we did. It would improve the world, and everyone's lives, if we did. Problem is: We are limited by those minds which cannot envision a fantastic future, and are way too obsessed with their own daily lives to see the possibilities.

13. Al Gore is a liar and hypocrite

Agreed.
 
Hello and welcome redfish,



I'll be happy to address every one of your points as long as we can have an agreement to be polite. No down-talking to each other, OK? Mutual respect, or forget it.

That work for you?

"Resident libs" was already a bad sign, bud. There is nothing to discuss anyway. You will splay out the orthodox climate science and he will offer
some sophistry cherry picked misapplication at best or disreputable oil commissioned blog sourced heterodoxy. In the end you have all the expert science, he has none,
and you win.

Why talk to trolls or idiots? You are agreeing to have a civil debate over the general contour of planet earth and he says it's flat.
 
Hello redfish,



Excellent. Thank you. My pleasure. Here goes:



Agreed. They also show that mass scale events can trigger climate change. The great oxygenation event which created the breathable atmosphere we take for granted was likely caused by an explosion of life forms which consumed CO2 and produced O2.



Cannot agree. Humans are over-populating the Earth and changing much of it, including the climate. Every life-form which expands it's numbers to the extent of it's habitat affects that habitat.



Disagree. The atmosphere is a big factor in the climate. We put things into the atmosphere, it affects the climate.



No, I don't think they make up 55% at all. Nowhere near that. Agreed that will never do 100% for the current population level. We need safe nuclear and we need to control our population growth.



Agreed and disagreed. Air and water pollution have been decreased. Plastic and chemical pollution has increased.



Agreed. We should further the science and look for more sustainable ways to get energy.



Current limitations prevent long distance electric car travel, and also trailer towing. We need more science and engineering to solve those issues.



Agreed. Current technology offers no ready replacement for fossil fuels.



Point well made.



That's not the goal at all. The goal is to create a more sustainable way to have our modern lives without destroying our habitat. It doesn't seem to be possible. Really, it would be a lot better if there were simply far fewer humans on the planet. Since we have no solution, we should agree to reduce our own numbers. Nobody has to die. All we have to do is drastically reduce the number of births. There has to be more meaning to life than simply reproducing. Religion is not the answer. Nearly all religions were created in ancient times when none of our current problems were a concern. Mostly they say go forth and multiply. Well, we did that. Now we have new issues we have to deal with. We should think about what the big picture is. We would like to leave the planet a better place for the next generation, but we are not really doing that. The more we try to advance, the worse it seems to get.

I have no problem with people believing anything they want about the cosmos and a creator. Everyone should be free to have their own faith. But we must agree that what we are doing is not workable, and that we have to change. We appear to be doomed if we keep doing what we are doing. Religions accept that, but I do not see why that has to be.

I think we need a powerful world government focused on human longevity and improving the human condition. We humans have a lot in common. We all have the same basic needs. Food, water, protection, security, social interaction. We have everything we need to address all of our concerns. We could eliminate starvation and poverty. We could raise the standard of living for every human on Earth, make everyone comfortable. Why all the fighting? It's just because people get attitudes. If we all simply recognize basic logic we could transform our existence and that of every human to come after us. If we created a world where everyone had what they needed there would be no reason for crime. Most of our problems come from people who really just need mental counseling. So, let's provide it! We have everything we need to solve the climate crisis, war, poverty, disease, species destruction, pollution, everything.

We live in such dark ages.

It's time for us to get advanced.



That's fine, but people need to really open their eyes to the possibilities. We can do so much more.



Well, sort of. We humans need to get far better organized. We could do so much more if we did. It would improve the world, and everyone's lives, if we did. Problem is: We are limited by those minds which cannot envision a fantastic future, and are way too obsessed with their own daily lives to see the possibilities.



Agreed.

thanks for a civil response. we do not agree on all points but thats fine. As free american citizens we don't have to agree on everything, Please tell Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Biden, and Harris that the first amendment is still in force.

I strongly disagree with your world government idea. Do the central african countries have the same economic needs and capabilities as the US and EU? china wants to be the dominant nation on earth, they won't comply with any world government.

I agree with you that we need to work on alternate forms of energy, let the free market find them, the profit motive has created the world we live in today. Government mandates stiffle innovation and discourage inventors. most AGW preachers say its about pollution and controlling pollution will control warming, it won't. Because the entire warming mantra is a lie based on recorded climate data that shows climate swings have been happening for millions of years, long before humans arrived and started building fires.

My main issue on this is that the government cannot work on this efficiently or effectively. And it is not the most important issue facing the world today, regardless of what the clowns Kerry and Gore tell us.
 
Hello Micawber,

"Resident libs" was already a bad sign, bud. There is nothing to discuss anyway. You will splay out the orthodox climate science and he will offer
some sophistry cherry picked misapplication at best or disreputable oil commissioned blog sourced heterodoxy. In the end you have all the expert science, he has none,
and you win.

Why talk to trolls or idiots? You are agreeing to have a civil debate over the general contour of planet earth and he says it's flat.

You know I understand the odds of two strangers having a political discussion that stays civil to be quite low, but it certainly won't happen if people don't try. I've been pushing for unity a lot longer than it's been since I voted for the Unity President. It doesn't mean we have to agree. It just means we recognize we are fellow countrymen who face some challenges together, we are not enemies, we both want a good country, and it's a good to hear what other people are thinking about things. Maybe an opportunity to learn something. Maybe hear something that will cause a better understanding, or spur a new idea. Can't hurt as long as it stays civil. That's why I always want to establish an understanding in the beginning. We stay civil or we break it off. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but we've never let that devolve into getting personal. Everybody I talk to here have all agreed to the same understanding. And I talk to a lot of people here. People from both sides of the isle.

I'll tell you who is on my Ignore list. The extremists. Both sides. That says something, right there. It doesn't seem to be possible to hold extreme views and not be a very angry person. I just wanna talk about politics. The furthest thing from my mind is getting into a name-calling contest. As soon as that stuff starts, I'm done. Somebody can do that to me once. That's on them. If I don't cut them off right then, it's on me if it happens again. So that's what I do. It's easy. The last thing I want is for some really frustrated angry person to decide that I am the cause of all their problems and unload on me. I don't come here for that. Many do, but that's not me. That's as plain an indicator as anybody needs, to know that extremist views are wrong.
 
Hello redfish,

thanks for a civil response. we do not agree on all points but thats fine.

My pleasure. It's refreshing to exchange ideas in a polite way. I'm quite hooked on it. Had my fill of 'the nasty' long ago. Not into that any more.

As free american citizens we don't have to agree on everything, Please tell Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Biden, and Harris that the first amendment is still in force.

I strongly disagree with your world government idea. Do the central african countries have the same economic needs and capabilities as the US and EU? china wants to be the dominant nation on earth, they won't comply with any world government.

Actually, I think China understands as well as anyone does what the biggest problem for humanity on Earth is.

I agree with you that we need to work on alternate forms of energy, let the free market find them, the profit motive has created the world we live in today. Government mandates stiffle innovation and discourage inventors. most AGW preachers say its about pollution and controlling pollution will control warming, it won't. Because the entire warming mantra is a lie based on recorded climate data that shows climate swings have been happening for millions of years, long before humans arrived and started building fires.

My main issue on this is that the government cannot work on this efficiently or effectively. And it is not the most important issue facing the world today, regardless of what the clowns Kerry and Gore tell us.

Well, it's like BartenderElite indicated. We have changed the world more in the last 200 years than in all the thousands of years of humanity before that. We don't have another 200 years if we keep going like this.

We have got to get organized. We have to get control of human population levels, stop expanding, and begin a period of reducing the number of humans on the planet. What the optimal number is, I don't know, but one thing I do know is that we already have too many. If it isn't bad enough that only the more advanced nations are burning through resources faster than they are created, what about the 'developing nations?' Man, if everybody on the planet was burning through resources the way 'civilized society' is? We certainly do not have another 200 years.

We need to step back and take a look at the big picture.

All that other stuff is small potatoes compared to this.

What we are doing is not sustainable.
 
Hello redfish,



My pleasure. It's refreshing to exchange ideas in a polite way. I'm quite hooked on it. Had my fill of 'the nasty' long ago. Not into that any more.



Actually, I think China understands as well as anyone does what the biggest problem for humanity on Earth is.



Well, it's like BartenderElite indicated. We have changed the world more in the last 200 years than in all the thousands of years of humanity before that. We don't have another 200 years if we keep going like this.

We have got to get organized. We have to get control of human population levels, stop expanding, and begin a period of reducing the number of humans on the planet. What the optimal number is, I don't know, but one thing I do know is that we already have too many. If it isn't bad enough that only the more advanced nations are burning through resources faster than they are created, what about the 'developing nations?' Man, if everybody on the planet was burning through resources the way 'civilized society' is? We certainly do not have another 200 years.

We need to step back and take a look at the big picture.

All that other stuff is small potatoes compared to this.

What we are doing is not sustainable.



Again, we agree that the earth is very close, if not over, its population limit. I think that education is the answer to that, not abortion on demand, or mandatory sterilization as they are doing in China.

We also need to understand that the one of the basic tenets of the muslim jihad is to reproduce and indoctrinate children faster than the other ideologies and religions. The Islamic countries don't care about the things we care about, all they care about is dominating the world and destroying the other religions. That is what they are taught from birth. I know what I am talking about on this because I lived and worked in several muslim countries.

Humans are polluting the air and water. BUT, there is no proven link between pollution and climate. the CO2 level in our atmosphere is virtually that same as it was 10,000 years ago and besides, CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no plant live on earth, and without plant life there would be no animal life (humna life).

My issue here is that the so-called climate change agenda is not the most important issue facing humanity today, its not even in the top 20. But yet, one political party is using it in an attempt to control human activity via mandates and intimidation. that is wrong.
 
Hello redfish,

Again, we agree that the earth is very close, if not over, its population limit. I think that education is the answer to that, not abortion on demand, or mandatory sterilization as they are doing in China.

I can't agree to that. Education can't be the only answer. While it certainly has to be a part of it. people are not going to voluntarily give up on the idea of having children. The level of education and understanding required for the world could not possibly occur in time to save humanity from itself.

Even highly educated people will succumb to their desire to have a family. They will make it not negotiable. They begin with a base belief that they are entitled to have a family, and they are conditioned throughout life to be EXPECTED TO have a family. It doesn't matter how high their education level goes, they are never taught that they should not be having a family. And after all. SOMEBODY needs to be having families, so why not everyone? Small families might be OK. If every couple had just two children, that would actually result in a gradual reduction of the number of humans on Earth. Essentially, with the 2 per couple condition, each human is simply replacing himself or herself. If there were no accidents, illness or war, it would result in a static population level. In reality we do have these things, so two children per couple would actually result in a reduced human population on Earth.

Would that reduction occur quickly enough to stabilize our habitat? We would have to look at that scientifically to get a better idea. It would fall upon government to ensure that these goals are met. Maybe governments could pay people to not have children. Maybe have lotteries. Whatever they want to do to achieve that goal. It's not going to happen with education and a wish.

We also need to understand that the one of the basic tenets of the muslim jihad is to reproduce and indoctrinate children faster than the other ideologies and religions. The Islamic countries don't care about the things we care about, all they care about is dominating the world and destroying the other religions. That is what they are taught from birth. I know what I am talking about on this because I lived and worked in several muslim countries.

You are entitled to your own informed view. I am no expert on any religion. I get the impression that pretty much all religions understand they are in competition with other religions for the attention of followers. They probably all say that 'other faiths are evil,' that they need to spread their own faith. There is no part of any religion that says: "Hey, we're glad you're part of us, but we get it that religion is just a choice and others choose differently. That's OK, Any belief, or even no belief, is perfectly fine." They simply do not officially recognize one another' right to exist in their teachings or scriptures. Religion is the worst problem for the future of humanity. Religion causes populations to fail to recognize that it is even POSSIBLE to have too many individuals in a given habitat, much less get organized to do anything about it.

Humans are polluting the air and water. BUT, there is no proven link between pollution and climate.

The major pollutant is excess CO2. We can emit previous low levels of CO2, that's fine. The problem occurs when we emit more CO2 than plants can absorb.

the CO2 level in our atmosphere is virtually that same as it was 10,000 years ago and besides, CO2 is not a pollutant. Without it there would be no plant live on earth, and without plant life there would be no animal life (humna life).

The general understanding is that CO2 has been on the rise for several hundred years, and is producing a global warming effect. Nobody is arguing that CO2 should be eliminated. We agree there should be proper levels of CO2.

My issue here is that the so-called climate change agenda is not the most important issue facing humanity today, its not even in the top 20. But yet, one political party is using it in an attempt to control human activity via mandates and intimidation. that is wrong.

I would argue that it is the biggest issue facing humanity. Humans have impacted the Earth more in the last 200 years than in 2.5 million years prior. If we don't get control of it rather quickly, we may not have another 200 years. How long do you think humanity can continue the way we are?
 
Hello redfish,



I can't agree to that. Education can't be the only answer. While it certainly has to be a part of it. people are not going to voluntarily give up on the idea of having children. The level of education and understanding required for the world could not possibly occur in time to save humanity from itself.

Even highly educated people will succumb to their desire to have a family. They will make it not negotiable. They begin with a base belief that they are entitled to have a family, and they are conditioned throughout life to be EXPECTED TO have a family. It doesn't matter how high their education level goes, they are never taught that they should not be having a family. And after all. SOMEBODY needs to be having families, so why not everyone? Small families might be OK. If every couple had just two children, that would actually result in a gradual reduction of the number of humans on Earth. Essentially, with the 2 per couple condition, each human is simply replacing himself or herself. If there were no accidents, illness or war, it would result in a static population level. In reality we do have these things, so two children per couple would actually result in a reduced human population on Earth.

Would that reduction occur quickly enough to stabilize our habitat? We would have to look at that scientifically to get a better idea. It would fall upon government to ensure that these goals are met. Maybe governments could pay people to not have children. Maybe have lotteries. Whatever they want to do to achieve that goal. It's not going to happen with education and a wish.



You are entitled to your own informed view. I am no expert on any religion. I get the impression that pretty much all religions understand they are in competition with other religions for the attention of followers. They probably all say that 'other faiths are evil,' that they need to spread their own faith. There is no part of any religion that says: "Hey, we're glad you're part of us, but we get it that religion is just a choice and others choose differently. That's OK, Any belief, or even no belief, is perfectly fine." They simply do not officially recognize one another' right to exist in their teachings or scriptures. Religion is the worst problem for the future of humanity. Religion causes populations to fail to recognize that it is even POSSIBLE to have too many individuals in a given habitat, much less get organized to do anything about it.



The major pollutant is excess CO2. We can emit previous low levels of CO2, that's fine. The problem occurs when we emit more CO2 than plants can absorb.



The general understanding is that CO2 has been on the rise for several hundred years, and is producing a global warming effect. Nobody is arguing that CO2 should be eliminated. We agree there should be proper levels of CO2.



I would argue that it is the biggest issue facing humanity. Humans have impacted the Earth more in the last 200 years than in 2.5 million years prior. If we don't get control of it rather quickly, we may not have another 200 years. How long do you think humanity can continue the way we are?



OK, I don't think we are going to find agreement on religion or birth control. So lets talk about CO2. OK?

CO2 makes up about .039% of the atmosphere. It has been at that same level ever since we have been able to measure it and, based on ice cores and fossil records, it was at that level millions of years ago. CO2 is not a pollutant. No plant life can survive without it, and with no plant live there would be no animal or human life. CO2 is not a problem. Toxic waste put into the air and water is a problem and the biggest offenders are China and India. Those countries are doing virtually nothing to reduce their pollution.

Now, on climate change. Man does not control earth's climate, never has and never will. Short of an all out nuclear war which would block sunlight for many years, we humans have nothing to do with climate. the climate of planet earth is controlled by the sun (specifically sun spots) and tiny wobbles on earth's axis. Ocean currents also have some affect on climate because they are not consistent. For example, northern europe would be extremely cold if not for the gulf stream current.

The earth has amazing healing powers. Example, in the 1950s River Rouge in Detroit caught fire due to all of the chemicals put into it by the car companies. Today that same river is clean and has fish living in it. We can stop polluting and if we do that the air and water will be clean again.

The falacy put out by the AGW crowd is that there is a direct link between pollution and climate. That link has never been proven and in fact, has been discredited by more than half of the world's climate "experts".

IMHO, the current climate crisis is nothing but an attempt by radical leftists to control the lives and actions of the people of the world, not to manage the climate but to control for the sake of control. Rand and Orwell wrote about it and their writings are proving true today.
 
Back
Top