Jump to content

Copenhagen


Keepitsimple

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 506
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If population was an urgent problem, you could conceivably stop population growth almost immediately.
It is the people that are already around that are the problem. Over-population *is* a risk that requires action today if we want to avoid catastrophe in the future. Once people start dying by the millions it is too late.
Climate change could result in such things as crop failure or flooding which may not be easily adapted.
And over population can create famines even if production stays the same. BTW - warming will increase agricultural productivity in many places.
is a pressing catastrophe that has been identified by leading scientists.
You mean those leading scientists who have been exposed as religious zealots determined to exaggerate results and suppress views that disagree with their own? I think it is safe to assume that the real risk is actually much less than we have been told because this topic has become so politicized. Edited by Riverwind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree. If population was an urgent problem, you could conceivably stop population growth almost immediately. Climate change could result in such things as crop failure or flooding which may not be easily adapted. Obviously we can't spend trillions addressing every possible catastrophe but this isn't every possible catastrophe - this is a pressing catastrophe that has been identified by leading scientists.

We're not spending trillions to prepare spaceships to leave the earth, but we might do so if we thought the sun was going supernova in 100 years.

agreed, China has stopped it's population boom but it'll take another 20-30 years before they start seeing the benefits and problems that it comes with...Canada and a number of euro countries have already reached zero population growth only immigration keeps us growing in numbers...if it came down to crunch time India and many other 3rd world countries could do the same if wished very quickly...

moving entire countries population away from rising sea levels and absorbing them elsewhere is mindboggling in logistic and economic scope, some smaller countries will just cease to exist...who'll pay for the move, which countries will volunteer to absorb entire populations(potentially hundreds of millions)...how do we replace lost prime agricultural lands, it's not like we can invent more...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the people that are already around that are the problem. Over-population *is* a risk that requires action today if we want to avoid catastrophe in the future. Once people start dying by the millions it is too late.

it is but then the solution is reached very quickly, fewer people...
And over population can create famines even if production stays the same. BTW - warming will increase agricultural productivity in many places.
BTW warming will reduce agricultural regions, deserts grow, no you can't farm in the arctic bedrock...more CO2 makes plants grow bigger but they also have a coresponding drop in nutritional value...
You mean those leading scientists who have been exposed as religious zealots determined to exaggerate results and suppress views that disagree with their own? I think it is safe to assume that the real risk is actually much less than we have been told because this topic has become so politicized.
you mean those bloggers with no scientific knowledge to question or understand the science...oh ya I have a lot of faith in their opinion...next time I have surgery I'll ask the hospital orderly if he concurs with my surgeons methods... Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gore has been consistent in his calls for the need to, the urgency to, shift away from carbon-based fuels... I believe the exact quote was, "extracting oil from Alberta's tar sands jeopardizes the survival of our species". Your poetic license in equating "jeopardize" to "destroying" is noted :lol:

Ahh, well thank you for the correction. I had thought his statement merely moronic, but as you point out, it's even dumber than that. Destruction of our species is even more preposterously ridiculous a suggestion than the end of civilization.

And this is the poster boy for the Global Warming hysteria you have fallen victim to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is the people that are already around that are the problem. Over-population *is* a risk that requires action today if we want to avoid catastrophe in the future. Once people start dying by the millions it is too late.

Except that people can't start dying by the millions suddenly. You made a point, I think, elsewhere about the time to turn things around. That applies here.

And over population can create famines even if production stays the same. BTW - warming will increase agricultural productivity in many places.

Hunger is on the decline even as the world population grows.

You mean those leading scientists who have been exposed as religious zealots determined to exaggerate results and suppress views that disagree with their own? I think it is safe to assume that the real risk is actually much less than we have been told because this topic has become so politicized.

Yes, those very scientists. As much as you think this casts climate science into doubt, do you want the Climategate events to cause us to disregard science altogether and start investigating risks to humanity on an individual basis ?

Your point was that we can't spent trillions investigating every risk - and my point is that we look to science - even with its flaws - to highlight important risks to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed, China has stopped it's population boom but it'll take another 20-30 years before they start seeing the benefits and problems that it comes with...Canada and a number of euro countries have already reached zero population growth only immigration keeps us growing in numbers...if it came down to crunch time India and many other 3rd world countries could do the same if wished very quickly...

No, the population continues to grow. The zero child policy has exceptions.

moving entire countries population away from rising sea levels and absorbing them elsewhere is mindboggling in logistic and economic scope, some smaller countries will just cease to exist...who'll pay for the move, which countries will volunteer to absorb entire populations(potentially hundreds of millions)...how do we replace lost prime agricultural lands, it's not like we can invent more...

Let's ask those who would have us do nothing: "If it turns out that AGW does cause catastrophe, are you willing to adopt the Maldives into Canada ?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW warming will reduce agricultural regions, deserts grow, no you can't farm in the arctic bedrock...more CO2 makes plants grow bigger but they also have a coresponding drop in nutritional value...

Where is there bedrock in the arctic versus soil ? And what about the huge amount of sub-Arctic land - isn't that arable ?

Furthermore - isn't current arable land more productive with warmer climate ?

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the population continues to grow. The zero child policy has exceptions.

there are exceptions but even then many are choosing to have only two children which still doesn't meet replacement numbers of 2.1...you can't introduce a one child policy and see immediate response it takes several generations, the oldest of the one child generation are now only 29yrs old their parents and many of their grandparents are still alive... so yes even with one child the population still appeared to be growing(it is) but it's just reaching the crest before the decline hits when the older generations die off...the policy has prevented the birth of 250 million children one generation since 1979 and will have nearly cut in half their numbers....
Let's ask those who would have us do nothing: "If it turns out that AGW does cause catastrophe, are you willing to adopt the Maldives into Canada ?"
maldives maybe the least of the problems...Bangladesh is a river delta home to 140 million living on agriculturally rich land, who pays for their dispacement and loss of agricultural land, where do they go Canada? or do we send them to some already impovrished 3rd world country...1 in 10 people worldwide live in coastal areas that would be at risk to sea level rise...the cost of moving that many people is enormous then the loss of the agricultural regions is beyond measure because it can't be replaced...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and here's the latest media distortion from Copenhagen. I don't even think the IPCC is saying these things..........the media simply quote things from the obviously desperate AGW movement activists. The casual reader would think that these statements are part of the "scientific consensus".

Scientists warn that many millions of people face going hungry, losing their homes and access to water within the next decade if nothing is done to stem the rise in greenhouse gas emissions.

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091216/world/un_climate_warming_67

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ya ultimately they are, if plants die then there are no people...your scientific ignorance is astounding...

I thought so.

If plants die then there are no plants. That's obvious. The fact you see that occurring speaks volumes about your scientific knowledge not to mention your astounding sense of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought so.

If plants die then there are no plants. That's obvious. The fact you see that occurring speaks volumes about your scientific knowledge not to mention your astounding sense of logic.

you're deflecting from your earlier stupid post, and it's still stupid... if you don't have anything relevant post then don't, refrain from out of the blue meaningless stupid comments...

and I'm still waitng for an answer to this accusation by you

Just about everybody cites the works of Suzuki and Gore, wyly - even you. They should be entirely discredited if we are to follow your standards.

please list where I have cited the work of Al gore or Suzuki...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....and here's the latest media distortion from Copenhagen. I don't even think the IPCC is saying these things..........the media simply quote things from the obviously desperate AGW movement activists. The casual reader would think that these statements are part of the "scientific consensus".

Link: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091216/world/un_climate_warming_67

I don't think those activists are scientists for some reason. I saw a lot of hammer and sickle flags and people in green vests not a lot of scientists. They need to get publicly visible regarding the politics on this issue.

Do they just present their findings and let the politicians decide what needs to be done. Could someone produce empirical peer reviewed scientific models that will predict what will occur if certain political solutions are implemented? After all, there are models and information that are presented by politicians that show what will occur if we do nothing. Will vast wealth transfers equate to lower carbon emissions? Where's the empirical peer reviewed literature? Ohhh... are just a few economists working on it? I want to hear from the scientists themselves. I know they believe that lower population, less development, lower energy consumption, essentially less human activity will contribute to lower GHG emissions. I mean that is only obvious and political solutions will probably promote those things - by taxing the economy but with fewer people (less population), less consumption of energy, less development, it means less wealth creation and consequently less available wealth for government to tax and pay for all the now unemployed and poor people that lack of economic growth will produce in the present. It will be devastating - perhaps we should look at more of a technological and scientific resoultion to our problems. Let's get those sicnetists to work on it. And not restrict R&D to technologies that are dependent upon the political ability to tax it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you're deflecting from your earlier stupid post, and it's still stupid... if you don't have anything relevant post then don't, refrain from out of the blue meaningless stupid comments...

Was this an out of the blue meaningless stupid comment?

and I'm still waitng for an answer to this accusation by you

please list where I have cited the work of Al gore or Suzuki...

I'm on it. Better start editing your posts. You know that Suzuki and Gore are your proxies. You should really divorce yourself from them entirely, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roughly 120 heads of state and government are expected to show up in Copenhagen in the next two days, with Obama planning to arrive on Friday morning.

Speakers are lined up to address the summit until the small hours of the morning, including political heavyweights such as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula de Silva and French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

But rather than an ironed-out final document, leaders will find draft texts littered with incomplete choices, exposing long-running rifts between rich and poor countries on how to split the cost of fighting climate change.

NYT

This Copenhagen meeting has all the makings of a typical Leftist conference. Everyone argues and nothing gets done.

Perhaps this was the plan - provoke discord and then suddenly achieve consensus, soldarity. We'll see by Friday whether the plan works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the Tory party may not have a Merry Christmas or a Happy New Year because of the Afghan coverup but more the environment which so far isn't going any where. Harper is pushing for the US and China to be on board but Canada could feel the effect of this through our trade with the US. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091217/national/climate_cda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't the PM doing a great job to make Canada look really good in the world? NOT!! Now the president of the US is snubbing Harper and not including him on meetings and well he should. Harper's stubborn outlook on the environment is coming back and kicking him his in derriere!! He can't keep being the GW of the environment, the whole world and Canadians want change that really does something. His way of doing things in Ottawa, won't go with dealing with the rest of world when he comes to the environment. Now that he has peeved the US off,lets hope it doesn't affect our relation on trade or more Canadians will be without a job! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/climate_cda

Edited by Topaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't the PM doing a great job to make Canada look really good in the world? NOT!! Now the president of the US is snubbing Harper and not including him on meetings and well he should. Harper's stubborn outlook on the environment is coming back and kicking him his in derriere!! He can't keep being the GW of the environment, the whole world and Canadians want change that really does something. His way of doing things in Ottawa, won't go with dealing with the rest of world when he comes to the environment. Now that he has peeved the US off,lets hope it doesn't affect our relation on trade or more Canadians will be without a job! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/climate_cda

Yet Harper's way of dealing with things won him consecutive elections. Seems like Canadians are fine with the way he does things.

Why would Harper be at that meeting, Canada's "contributions" to CO2 are negligible. Obama is doing Harper a favor by not having him attend that and have Harper be lectured about the oil sands and our petroleum industry by people who pollute far more than Canada ever will.

It's funny how Canadians have such vitreol for Bush, when in fact our country was in a far better off economic position with him and republicans at the helm.

If you and Mr. Canada got into a debate over political issues, the only loser would be everyone else who has to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't the PM doing a great job to make Canada look really good in the world? NOT!! Now the president of the US is snubbing Harper and not including him on meetings and well he should. Harper's stubborn outlook on the environment is coming back and kicking him his in derriere!! He can't keep being the GW of the environment, the whole world and Canadians want change that really does something. His way of doing things in Ottawa, won't go with dealing with the rest of world when he comes to the environment. Now that he has peeved the US off,lets hope it doesn't affect our relation on trade or more Canadians will be without a job! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/climate_cda

why would you invite an admitted denier(it's a socialist plot to steal our money) to a meeting on CC and it's solutions, it's counter productive and an embarassment...

Edited by wyly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't the PM doing a great job to make Canada look really good in the world? NOT!! Now the president of the US is snubbing Harper and not including him on meetings and well he should. Harper's stubborn outlook on the environment is coming back and kicking him his in derriere!! He can't keep being the GW of the environment, the whole world and Canadians want change that really does something. His way of doing things in Ottawa, won't go with dealing with the rest of world when he comes to the environment. Now that he has peeved the US off,lets hope it doesn't affect our relation on trade or more Canadians will be without a job! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/climate_cda

The problem is getting an agreement from the big players. It only slows things down if you have 115 different people in a room.... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is getting an agreement from the big players. It only slows things down if you have 115 different people in a room.... :lol:

best quote from the conference goes to one of little players...

when the Environment Minister of Kenya was asked what he thought of the entire agreement coming down to an agreement between the USA and China..."that's Bullshit"... :lol: nearly fell off my chair when I heard that...not very diplomatic but he hit the nail on the head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't the PM doing a great job to make Canada look really good in the world? NOT!! Now the president of the US is snubbing Harper and not including him on meetings and well he should. Harper's stubborn outlook on the environment is coming back and kicking him his in derriere!! He can't keep being the GW of the environment, the whole world and Canadians want change that really does something. His way of doing things in Ottawa, won't go with dealing with the rest of world when he comes to the environment. Now that he has peeved the US off,lets hope it doesn't affect our relation on trade or more Canadians will be without a job! http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091218/world/climate_cda

Harper and Obama have already agreed on a "linked" continental agreement. Because our economies are so intertwined, we have no choice but to have complimentary approaches and targets.....if we do more, our economy suffers. If we do less, we'd be subject to trade sanctions. So it makes no sense to have Harper at this particular meeting - it's unwieldy enough with 19 players without offering courtesy invitations.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

best quote from the conference goes to one of little players...

when the Environment Minister of Kenya was asked what he thought of the entire agreement coming down to an agreement between the USA and China..."that's Bullshit"... :lol: nearly fell off my chair when I heard that...not very diplomatic but he hit the nail on the head...

It's a funny comment. But it couldn't miss the nail by more more. It's common sense, not bullshit.

The cost of bringing everyone who is of little consequence to the conference could have fed a lot of people in Kenya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,533
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    papoket
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...