to expand a bit further... Far left = insane, left = evil, right = slightly less evil, far right = dumb. Hows that?
There is virtually no question that when most of the world's population is starving, all environmental initiatives will be ignored. A starving population will strip the land of all of its available resources, including common and even endangered species, for its own survival.Pemba wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:08 pmI think we're misunderstanding each other. My point was even without considering rising CO2 levels, a rising global population is a big (environmental) problem I think. This in response to your: "a population increase is not environmentally devastating in a warming climate where food is available"
What you or I believe is relatively unimportant. But policy decisions based on falsified data tend to lead to bigger problems. And I don't think your preference or vote is even considered with regards to the climate which you were born into.Pemba wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 1:08 pmI believe you have stated that you don't believe that people are responsible for global warming or capable of changing the trend. So I don't understand the concern for global cooling as a result of humans trying to reduce CO2. I'd prefer for it to stay around the present temperature. One year up, the next year down sort of thing. Off course long term this is unlikely. But I think present population increase is unsustainable in the long run anyway.
Both left and right have their strengths and weaknesses. The left is both passionate and stupid. The right is logical and lacks passion.
I think you mean 'lacks compassion'. You can't tell me the Donald lacks passion... what exactly for though i'm not entirely sureMatteo V wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 5:03 amBoth left and right have their strengths and weaknesses. The left is both passionate and stupid. The right is logical and lacks passion.
Many people think of left vs right on a straight line. The reality, or more fitting shape, would be a circle. Take that left vs right line and bend it up where left and right are touching at the top, and the middle is at the bottom.
The standard for understanding something is being able to make future predictions accurately. Climatology is very much a field of study in its infancy where we are not even sure of all of the variables affecting it. And even recent predictions have fallen flat on their face.
There is no debate that in a cooling climate all agricultural production suffers. Plants grow slower in cooler climates. Cooler climates have less average rainfall. Most plants that grow at Northern latitudes can be grown at latitudes closer to the Equator. Very few plants that grow at the equator can be grown at Northern latitudes.
False. The key drivers of climate have been well understood since the late 1800s. The body of scientific literature is huge, but ultimately depend upon the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, Clausius-Clapeyron equation, and the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid motion. Solving these partial differential equations require computing power only accessible in the last 30 years. Climate models do very well, but they can not predict in advance future greenhouse gas emissions, volcanic eruptions, or periodic events such as ENSO.Matteo V wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 10:58 pmThe standard for understanding something is being able to make future predictions accurately. Climatology is very much a field of study in its infancy where we are not even sure of all of the variables affecting it. And even recent predictions have fallen flat on their face.
Totally irrelevant as the climate will not cool until the volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reduce. Excessive warming can have detrimental effects as well, just ask our friends in the Pacific North West.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests