Global warming or Human selfishness

[entwisi]

I was thinking last night as i often do whilst allowing my brain to wander through the ether...

We all know the world goes through a cyclic ice age to warm and back again over thousands of years and in reality we are coming out of a mini ice age still. Now whether the whole of the warming seen is due to that and its the first time we have had the intelligence and ability to monitor it or if it really is our consumption of fuels and products that generate CO2/Methane/etc is one for another day. What I was thinking is in the past as temperatures rose and areas of the planet became hotter and more inhospitable to the human species around at that time is not the key difference that then they simply migrated over periods to the cooler more livable areas driving our species across the globe? In fact even right down in temperature to the Artic and Antarctic areas where whilst hard you can still live with the right preparation.

Today we seem to be hell bent that people should be able to continue to live in these areas becoming more hostile even if that means death and hardships.

So, is it humans being too big for our 21C boots and thinking we have some divine right to stay where we are or are we just stubborn sods who have forgotten the way the world worked in previous hot periods and should embrace migration? After all the major difference is now we have some imaginary lines drawn in the soil/sand that we now apply rules over who can cross them? Is our greed the simple reason people die in one place when they could move somewhere else. what drives our protectionisms of land that in all respects hardly any of us actually own?

[Less]

All of the above, the problem seems to be that global warming is being monitored by 'experts' and as has been seen over on the covid thread 'experts' tend to place their bias towards the needs of the people paying them rather than by really understanding and working with facts.

It is claimed that we have brought this upon ourselves over the past 300 or so years by burning more and more fossil fuels, does this mean that if we stopped using coal & oil immediately it would take another 300 years to get back to square one?
I can't see us stopping or even being tempted to stop using all those mod cons we enjoy and going back to our roots. e.g. bringing back serfdom and thanking the lord of the manor for our daily turnip.

So if only half the 'experts' are correct I'd say we're all going to hell on a coal cart, let's enjoy the ride, because the earth will still be here long after we have gone and it may take time but it will return to whatever normality it chooses for that particular era that it's going through.

[cashman]

to be honest i reckon Global Warming is utter crap. what caused the Ice age? it sure wasnt people or plastic or anything there was none. its just weather changing as far as im concerned. sure we are getting warmer we do over years,we also get colder over them also.

[entwisi]

The UK is actually in a weird position that as global warming and ice caps melt we will actually go cooler to start with due to the fact we are actually artificially warmer than our latitude would expect due to the north Atlantic drift that brings warm air and sea across from Americas. as the salinity dilutes the currents get less and we lose that free warmth...

its universally agreed that the planet does go through cycles of ice and warm over long periods due to a number of factors. whether we are acelerating that is not the point of this thread. this is hoping to discuss whether our fascination with "country boundaries" restricting migration is actually the root of death and suffering when our ancestors would have simply up sticks and wandered somewhere better

[cashman]

society cannot up sticks and move bricks and mortar have seen to that.

[Less]

Originally Posted by entwisi

this is hoping to discuss whether our fascination with "country boundaries" restricting migration is actually the root of death and suffering when our ancestors would have simply up sticks and wandered somewhere better

Well, way back when there were fewer folk knocking about so if a few million gradually up sticks and move to new horizons the effects are far less and therefore the consequences to the indigenous population would be less.

If however things suddenly got worse around the world and a few billion decided the grass was greener elsewhere, given the fact that the human race is full to bursting these incomers wouldn't be welcome as such an influx wouldn't be sustainable.
The land would fall to those with the bigger guns that could destroy the other sides inflatables to make room for their own people.

I think it's called survival of the fittest?

[Margaret Pilkington]

I do not subscribe to the theory of climate change as such.
It has become a new religion….and the scientists who tell us that we are to blame come to this decision because they use computer modelling…and Entwisi, you are probably better placed to educate us on this…but I was always told CICO…..when inputting data(and some of this is, I think, based on assumptions rather than evidence) Crap in=Crap out.
A number of years ago I think it was in Cambridge…it was one of the seats of learning anyway…it was found that scientists had falsified data…..it was a good way down the track before this was recognised.

What is most definitely true is that the world is overpopulated.
And while boffins work out how to make us ‘greener’…..what is needed is population control.
Now how you can effect this is a moot point.
War and pestilence usually make a fine fist of this, but it is and unhappy fist.

There have always been cyclical climate changes….as you have mentioned.
It is arrogant to conclude that we are responsible for this….some of it maybe, but it is not the whole picture.

Banning the use of fossil fuels is something that is proposed to help us make less of the gases that are said to heat up the planet….but then using electrical vehicles which are not eco friendly to make….and disposing of the batteries is going to be a problem too.
They need to be charged, their range is limited and where is the electric power to charge them coming from….don’t, please, don’t say wind power(unless you are citing the hot air from our lack lustre politicians).
This is the most inefficient way to generate sustainable energy.
We are an island surrounded by the movement of the tides….guaranteed always to be there….so why is that option not on the table….hydrogen power is also a cleaner source of power, but not without its hazards.

I believe the green aims are not achievable and will force many people into poverty….so this may cull a few of the folk on this earth.
Other than that (Gallic shrug) I am glad I am at the bum end of my life…because I do not like the look of where we are headed.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I fear that most of the green agenda is meant to make us, the little people, the plebs, poorer and with less comfortable lives…..and to take money from our pockets….so follow the money.
Those with power and influence will always have their needs and comforts well cared for.
It is forcing a new serfdom on the populace.

[entwisi]

Originally Posted by cashman

society cannot up sticks and move bricks and mortar have seen to that.

The majority in the places where it is becoming inhospitable don't have bricks and motar and are more than capable of migration. heck if it was a choice of this house and struggling to live or a more comfortable life somewhere else I'd happy walk away tomorrow

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

What is most definitely true is that the world is overpopulated.
And while boffins work out how to make us ‘greener’…..what is needed is population control.
Now how you can effect this is a moot point.
War and pestilence usually make a fine fist of this, but it is and unhappy fist.

Agree whole heartedly, it wasn't that long ago that here in advanced Britain we had enormous families because in short it was expected that some would die.

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

but then using electrical vehicles which are not eco friendly to make….and disposing of the batteries is going to be a problem too.
They need to be charged, their range is limited and where is the electric power to charge them coming from….don’t, please, don’t say wind power(unless you are citing the hot air from our lack lustre politicians).
This is the most inefficient way to generate sustainable energy.
We are an island surrounded by the movement of the tides….guaranteed always to be there….so why is that option not on the table….hydrogen power is also a cleaner source of power, but not without its hazards.

again 100% on the ecological footprint of manufacture of EVs... I'm back in a 30year old Merc as my daily on that very basis. Range however isn't the issue it was 5 years ago. There are plenty that can do the same and more than my merc can on a full tank. Recharge times are dropping quickly as well.

re tidal or wind or solar as generation points, my concern is that where we interfere with the natural order of things we don't necessarily understand the wider impact on the wildlife that might use that tide to migrate or the movement becomes disrupted and confuses them. just like bird strikes on wind farms. Solar farms do seem to offer a relative potential benefit as I've seen watercourses in hot countries enclosed with a solar "roof" which reduces evaporation and allows more of the source water to get to the end points its often sorely needed

[Margaret Pilkington]

Wave power or the use of photovoltaic panels might be the way forward.

[dotti34]

We are all aware that the climate has changed over the years, this has been a natural progression. We should not expect it to stay the same year after year. However, it doesn’t help that trees are being cut down in huge numbers, trees that do their bit in helping control the climate, that world population has grown over the years to an unsustainable level, that people are their own worst enemies, abusing what they are using, and so on.

Apparently the earth will eventually be absorbed by the sun in about 7.5 billion years, so it doesn’t look like the end of the world is nigh, although according to a leaflet that was in my letterbox from some religious group. the end of the world will be the 8th December 2022.

[dotti34]

By the way, where I live it will probably reach about 40 degrees today, but it is summer so these days can be expected. Is it hotter today than a few years ago – I don’t think so. Just ask a friend from the UK who visited us in 2008 – it was 45 degrees when he landed here.

My husband worked in construction going back some 60 years or so. He worked on building sites and it would be around 115 degrees F and similar, even higher, for days on end. ‘Strip to the waist and get on with it, mate’….and that’s what he did.

[monkey hanger]

Originally Posted by dotti34

, although according to a leaflet that was in my letterbox from some religious group. the end of the world will be the 8th December 2022.

that will mean boris will have to bring forward his retirement party and quiz that carrie has arranged for december 9th.

[monkey hanger]

[QUOTE=Margaret Pilkington;1261272]

What is most definitely true is that the world is overpopulated.
And while boffins work out how to make us ‘greener’…..what is needed is population control.

totally true. when there is a shortage of food or somewhere to live animals firstly stop breeding. then if things carry on the same that species dies out in that area. 300 years is not even a dot on the length of time humans have been on the earth but the population difference in the last 300 years is massive. even a small country like ours we have nearly 20 million extra than 70 years ago and still growing. some of it is due to immegration but not all. far more incentives should be used to lower family numbers unlike the present systems that seem to encourage it.

[taddy]

[QUOTE=Margaret Pilkington;1261288]Wave power or the use of photovoltaic panels might be the way forward.

Photovoltaic, where did you dig that word up from ? I am a bear of little brain and big words confuse me.