climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Pemba]

Climate change is merely one anthropogenic alteration to the world's ecology. We are in the middle of a rare mass extinction event and have created a new geological age. This is the Anthropocene.

Couldn't one then argue that "climate change" (as in mainly the discussion around co2-emissions) is then a distraction?

I would be very interested in learning more about the sustainability of current (and future) human foot print on the planet. I might very well be wrong and that population is not an issue, but my guess is that the overall volume of human activity is a much bigger issue than the burning of fossil fuels (I got to stress that is very much a guess).

I also think that over population is a very big problem. Maybe bigger than climate change. In fact one of the reasons for increasing energy demand is increasing population. But I expect it will be something far more controversial to deal with than climate change. Religion would come in.. There night be other even bigger environmental issues than climate change, I don't know. There are certainly many environmental issues that can be blamed on humans..

[Matteo V]

A cooling climate has a lower carrying capacity than the current climate. A warming climate has a higher carrying capacity than the current climate.

You keep claiming this without any evidence. If you are looking solely from selfish human viewpoint, a warming climate means that the optimal habitable zone shifts towards the poles. We are a sub-tropical species which has managed to adapt to other climates. Other less adaptable species will struggle.

You will not find a single scientist who will debate this fact. Increasing temperature always equals increasing average rainfall.

In every land-based ecosystem on the planet, precipitation is essential. There are species and entire ecosystems in the Sahara Desert that rely on rain that may fall only every 10 years. If the climate cools and that timespan expands out to 100 or 200 years, those ecosystems collapse. This would bring the chance for evolution to kick in and adapt to the new condition, but the existing ecosystem has collapsed.

Similarly, reduction in rainfall in rainforest could lead to an expanded dry season where fire wreaks more havoc than man ever could.

......a warming climate means that the optimal habitable zone shifts towards the poles.

You have just proved my own point for me, if you have the ability to expand your thinking to include what would happen in the opposite situation. So let me help you with this one.

A cooling climate means that the optimal habitable zone shifts towards the equator. This equates to less space for the vast majority of the species on this Earth.

Thus if you're thinking selfishly, sure you might be more comfortable in a cooler climate and not have to turn on your AC as much. But there's going to be a lot of species who won't be able to compete in less space, and entire ecosystems will collapse because they don't have the space in which to function when you shift the habitable zone closer to the equator. Less room means less space for an ecosystem to exist and resist outside influences.

And while I don't specifically intend to berate you for your comment, this is going to sound bad anyway. But I just hate to explain the obvious, and even more so, when someone opposed to my position proves my point for me and I have to explain that they have proved my point. Take a little time and think things through, and save us all some time.

[Matteo V]

I also think that over population is a very big problem. Maybe bigger than climate change. In fact one of the reasons for increasing energy demand is increasing population. But I expect it will be something far more controversial to deal with than climate change. Religion would come in.. There night be other even bigger environmental issues than climate change, I don't know. There are certainly many environmental issues that can be blamed on humans..

Again, a population increase is not environmentally devastating in a warming climate where food is available. A population increase in a cooling climate where food is not available to humans, will truly lead to the greatest extinction event since the Earth was first oxygenated by cyanobacteria.

And the population issue is the greatest logical inconsistency the left sells to its constituents. On one hand, the left wants to reduce the per person carbon emission buy a percentage. At the same time they want to import more people from countries who have an ideological mandate to replace the native population quickly and institute an ideological system which has never considered the environment a priority.

[SimonP]

Take a look at a globe sometime and look at where the main concentration of land is. The Mercator map projection is highly misleading.
The scientific consensus is that rapid warming > 2°C is dangerous. This is why every country in the world bar one notable exception signed the Paris Agreement to limit warming.
You are pushing a bizarre manifesto which has no basis outside of rural USA.

[Pemba]

I also think that over population is a very big problem. Maybe bigger than climate change. In fact one of the reasons for increasing energy demand is increasing population. But I expect it will be something far more controversial to deal with than climate change. Religion would come in.. There night be other even bigger environmental issues than climate change, I don't know. There are certainly many environmental issues that can be blamed on humans..

Again, a population increase is not environmentally devastating in a warming climate where food is available. A population increase in a cooling climate where food is not available to humans, will truly lead to the greatest extinction event since the Earth was first oxygenated by cyanobacteria.

And the population issue is the greatest logical inconsistency the left sells to its constituents. On one hand, the left wants to reduce the per person carbon emission buy a percentage. At the same time they want to import more people from countries who have an ideological mandate to replace the native population quickly and institute an ideological system which has never considered the environment a priority.

Just repeating something doesn't make it true. "a population increase is not environmentally devastating in a warming climate where food is available": what about extra CO2 emission (might as well do the same then) ? More plastics ? More (other) pollutants ? Overfishing ? The list could go on and on. I would say there is a strong negative correlation between population and environment depending somewhat on how you'd quantify each but generally true. But population increase in a warming climate might be better than the same in a cooling climate. I don't know. In any case do you see the reducing CO2 emissions advocated by the AGW "believers" leading to a cooler climate ? If you do then you obviously agree that AGW is taking place. If you don't, bringing up a cooling climate seems irrelevant.

I don't think the left specifically wants to "import people". They want to help them. Naive maybe, and maybe one often leads to the other, but different from what you say. Also, certainly not all "imported" people have the ideology you described. Unfortunately caring about the environment, similar to caring about birthcontrol, animal welfare, etc. is a luxury. Not really a priority when you're poor. Though that's a bit beside the point.. It does seem that apart from a few indigenous communities here and there only (parts of) the first world show some care of the environment (while continuing destroying and after having destroyed a lot of it..)

[Matteo V]

Take a look at a globe sometime and look at where the main concentration of land is. The Mercator map projection is highly misleading.

Do you have a point with this? Regardless of distribution of land, increasing arability of that land means a greater carrying capacity for the entire Earth. And increasing the Earth's temperature increases the arability of land on Earth. There is no science that says otherwise. All of the propaganda about devastating consequences from increasing temperatures is untrue. And you will never get a scientist to say that decreasing temperatures are good for food production and ecosystems.

And there is no Manifesto. It's simply the reality which we are facing. This reality is skewed by those with an agenda and interest in pushing that agenda for their own gain. Increasing global temperatures are not devastating to the Earth. Decrease in global temperatures absolutely are devastating to the Earth. No amount of consensus changes the science.

[Matteo V]

Just repeating something doesn't make it true. "a population increase is not environmentally devastating in a warming climate where food is available": what about extra CO2 emission (might as well do the same then) ? More plastics ? More (other) pollutants ? Overfishing ? The list could go on and on. I would say there is a strong negative correlation between population and environment depending somewhat on how you'd quantify each but generally true. But population increase in a warming climate might be better than the same in a cooling climate. I don't know. In any case do you see the reducing CO2 emissions advocated by the AGW "believers" leading to a cooler climate ? If you do then you obviously agree that AGW is taking place. If you don't, bringing up a cooling climate seems irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but I believed that this was a self-evident statement which is not debated. If you would like to debate it, then explain how increasing temperatures leads to less arability of land on average. In order to do that you would have to show that evaporation is greater in a cooler environment than a warmer one. You would also have to prove that food crops grow better in cooler temperatures. So, yeah, there is no debating it.

And yes it is possible that reducing CO2 could lead to cooling. However that is not absolutely certain. The main issue is that, once again, all of the energies of those easily riled up to save the Earth, are being wasted on something that is not actually benefiting the environment. And there is much environmental damage being done in the name of saving it. But personally I feel the worst is that the supposedly positive actions of the left are actually being undone by other actions of the left.......

I don't think the left specifically wants to "import people". They want to help them. Naive maybe, and maybe one often leads to the other, but different from what you say. Also, certainly not all "imported" people have the ideology you described. Unfortunately caring about the environment, similar to caring about birthcontrol, animal welfare, etc. is a luxury. Not really a priority when you're poor. Though that's a bit beside the point.. It does seem that apart from a few indigenous communities here and there only (parts of) the first world show some care of the environment (while continuing destroying and after having destroyed a lot of it..)

No one is helped, in the long run, by increasing population. When we talk about the per person CO2 emissions, along with all of the other pollution that individuals produce in any society, one would think that getting the numbers down would be the number one goal. I mean does anyone actually think that we are making headway if we reduce the environmental impact of each individual on Earth by half, but we double the population? That should be simple enough math for anyone to realize that you're working backwards against yourself if you hold environmentalism and increasing population as ideals. And that is exactly what the left does! The problem with the left is that none of its constituents have the wherewithal to go against the left's propaganda on that issue.

[SimonP]

Do you have a point with this? Regardless of distribution of land, increasing arability of that land means a greater carrying capacity for the entire Earth. And increasing the Earth's temperature increases the arability of land on Earth. There is no science that says otherwise. All of the propaganda about devastating consequences from increasing temperatures is untrue. And you will never get a scientist to say that decreasing temperatures are good for food production and ecosystems.

OK, let's test your theory and do a literature search: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q= ... i=scholart
Lots of evidence there that increasing temperatures will have a detrimental effect on staples such as wheat.

[tegirinenashi]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ideolo ... 1594572501

[Matteo V]

Do you have a point with this? Regardless of distribution of land, increasing arability of that land means a greater carrying capacity for the entire Earth. And increasing the Earth's temperature increases the arability of land on Earth. There is no science that says otherwise. All of the propaganda about devastating consequences from increasing temperatures is untrue. And you will never get a scientist to say that decreasing temperatures are good for food production and ecosystems.

OK, let's test your theory and do a literature search: https://scholar.google.co.nz/scholar?q= ... i=scholart
Lots of evidence there that increasing temperatures will have a detrimental effect on staples such as wheat.

One crop is not a test of a fact which you call a "theory". Overall agricultural production is lessened by cooling temperatures, and increased by warming temperatures. Is there a chance that avocado production is lessened in a naturally or anthropogenic warming event? Yes it does. Will anyone starve because avocados have become scarce? NO! Agriculture is easier and less environmentally harmful when more land is available, higher temperatures exist, and more rainfall happens. These are all undisputed results of a warming climate.

Conversely, no one debates the disaster that would happen if the climate cooled, for agricultural production on Earth. And agricultural production already creates many stresses on the environment, along with a large amount of pollution. Making less land arable, would mean that that land would need to be farmed more intensely, with much more environmental destruction going along with that increasing intensity.

Find someone who has a logical line of reasoning that goes against what I have stated above. Because I cannot find this anywhere. And no matter how badly you want your position to be true, you're arguing against a simple fact that evaporation is increased when warming occurs.