Are we in danger

[sambo]

The real problem is the expectation of growth - economy, housing, shares, population, standard of living, you name it. No point limiting what comes out the tailpipe if you're happy to build more cars. Or introducing a tax to supposedly fix the environment, meanwhile promoting urban sprawl. Something has to give eventually, its as simple as that. Just make sure you've got a seat when the music stops.

[cameron02]

Sambo,

I agree. I have come to believe that the over population of the planet is the root of all evil, or most of it.

[cameron02]

I finally found that cartoon.

Not sure of the author but it was published in USA Today

[cameron02]

Hi Rob,
I read the article. The argument as presented does not make a lot of sense to me. It assumes that "if we make more heat, the amount of heat radiated into space will not increase". That may be right but no evidence is provided or refered to. Interesting idea though.

[Maurice Butler]

I think gobal warming is an inconvenience compared to food problems with GMO
Four ways Monsanto threatens the environment and public health

[HSVREDSLED]

Originally Posted by cameron02

I finally found that cartoon.

Not sure of the author but it was published in USA Today

Absolutely agree.

Get China, India the US and the rest of the big hitters who make up 98.7% of the Carbon emmission to the table and I will gladly support.

Not a problem at all....

[lal Naja]

As intelligent as we are as a species and we are really amazing at what we have been able to accomplish. But the reality that we are not willing to face is really over population. It is not politically correct to state that we really are the cause. I've traveled the world and have seen the mess we make, shameful. But no one will seriously address it. We instead choose to cure the ethereal, an impossible task.

I live in a city of about 8 million and a large percentage of these folk are just littering pigs. It is disgusting. Yet our government agencies levy taxes and license fees all in the name of Global Warming, now Climate Change. I would be much happier if some of these extorted fees were from fines for littering and we were spent the Global Warming/carbon taxes taxes on educating the masses to stop throwing trash in our streets. We have MILLIONS of pieces of chewing gum on our side walks, yes millions.

And we have dog owners that leave their crap everywhere. In the US we create 95 million piles of dog crap, that is if your dog craps once a day. and 65 million piles of cat poop. All of which are not disposed of in a ecological way.

So for intelligent beings we continue to chase pies in the sky and don't even notice the dog crap oozing between out toes.

Something is seriously deficient in our making.

[lal Naja]

As intelligent as we are as a species and we are really amazing at what we have been able to accomplish. But the reality that we are not willing to face is really over population. It is not politically correct to state that we really are the cause. I've traveled the world and have seen the mess we make, shameful. But no one will seriously address it. We instead choose to cure the ethereal, an impossible task.

I live in a city of about 8 million and a large percentage of these folk are just littering pigs. It is disgusting. Yet our government agencies levy taxes and license fees all in the name of Global Warming, now Climate Change. I would be much happier if some of these extorted fees get collected from fines for littering and we were spent the Global Warming/carbon taxes on educating the masses to stop throwing trash in our streets. We have MILLIONS of pieces of chewing gum on our side walks, yes millions.

And we have dog owners that leave their crap everywhere. In the US we create 95 million piles of dog crap, that is if your dog craps once a day. And 65 million piles of cat poop. All of which are not disposed of in a non ecological way.

So for intelligent beings we continue to chase pies in the sky and don't even notice the dog crap oozing between out toes.

Something is seriously deficient in our making and sense of reality.

[Rob. Smith]

Originally Posted by cameron02

Hi Rob,
I read the article. The argument as presented does not make a lot of sense to me. It assumes that "if we make more heat, the amount of heat radiated into space will not increase". That may be right but no evidence is provided or refered to. Interesting idea though.

Yeah I thought it was a load of talking in circles....that's why I said..I think we're OK ! I like to look at all this with a bit of humour. I myself have seen a fair bit of the darkness in life so it's all sunshine for me now ! ha ha ha. I work in a power station as well

[Rob. Smith]

The answer is Soyent Green. Eat the oldies !

[Merv and Sharon]

and "Logan's Run" Rob. ... I think we have been this way before, however. I see China's says it's bringing in an emissions tax.

[Rog246]

Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon

We all have our views on this. Those of us who work in scientific communities hear about their research and the consolidated views of the large body of research, that they choose to quote, and the long term 'trend' data. You form an opinion depending, to some extent, on the initial orientation or vested interest that you have.

I tend to agree with Cameron on most of this, and also can see the folly of thinking in short time frames. At a personal level, I am deeply concerned about the increasing control of our media by the owners of big business and now the mining companies (Palmer/Rinehart) and how this whole issue is presented. I also think that 7 billion people on this planet with cars, stoves, factories and animals, might just have a bit of an effect on the contents of the atmosphere and give old 'mother nature' somewhat of a challenge.

However, whether you are a believer or not, cynicism is the best attitude. Be cynical of the scientific claims until you have spent some time in the journals and doing your own search, but also be cynical of some of the leading nay-sayers and question their motives as well.

Well said young Mervyn, well said !

[HSVREDSLED]

"Motive" is probably the most important word in this whole debate.

What was AL Gores Motive?

What is Gillards Motive.

Blind Freddy can see, that the motive of an imposition of a CO2 tax on Australia, is NOT primarliy to reduce global emmissions.

[Maurice Butler]

Originally Posted by HSVREDSLED

"Motive" is probably the most important word in this whole debate.

What was AL Gores Motive?

What is Gillards Motive.

Blind Freddy can see, that the motive of an imposition of a CO2 tax on Australia, is NOT primarliy to reduce global emmissions.

Money - who's making the money - all very simple really

[cameron02]

I assume Gillards motive is to stay in government. Labour lost a lot of votes to the Greens.

When you say who's making the money. I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that The Carbon Tax is going into Gillards personal bank account?

Over population. Yes I agree that it is probably the major cause of the climate problem and many others. Are we willing to change our vote?
Stable Population Party of Australia - Home

[Merv and Sharon]

Major advocates of the opposing view who own media and mining shares have some pretty clever ways of making some believe their line of argument. It seems on recent reports in the more independent press that the well informed critic of CC/GM, Lord Monkton, is funded by a certain WA mining magnate. I think money might be involved there somewhere.

[BMK]

Monkton has been around for ages.

He is quite wealthy and has been pushing this for years.

[Merv and Sharon]

True Bernie, but now he is being sponsored in Australia as well and it seems that the truth is what wealthy folk with vested interests chose to tell us through their media.

Australia reacts to Lord Monckton's call for a 'Fox News' funded by 'super rich' | Environment | guardian.co.uk