rideforever Posted April 24, 2019 What about just doing nothing, and sort of waiting until the dinosaur juice is gone ? Wouldn't that be a lot simpler and cause fewer heart attacks ? Or do people like the heart attacks more ? Â Â Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 24, 2019 Hm some remarks, You know, it's been 20 years that it is said that we have used half of the oil resources... so we keep finding new spots, but harder to exploit (more financial costs, and more environmental cost : hydraulic fracturing or drilling very deep under the ocean) Your source is BP, do you realize what it means ? You may not know that oceans are like a HUGE buffer when it comes to global warming, this implies that even if we stopped CO2 emissions the warming will continue, cause the oceans will release in the air for quiet a while. Plus methane is not mentioned... but yeah cows ruminate then fart, this produce a lot of methane that contribute to the... yeah you got it ! There are already tons of side effects. Considering humanity, (because earth doesnt need us...) the main impact will be on food. Yeah starvation for the more vulnerables. Enjoy ! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted April 24, 2019 ah yes, the overpopulation alarmists, who have a longer track record of failure than climate predictions Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 24, 2019 12 minutes ago, joeblast said: ah yes, the overpopulation alarmists, who have a longer track record of failure than climate predictions  Wack as fuck. I did not talk overpopulation, but lack of food.  I'm out, no time for that kind of crap. 2 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rideforever Posted April 25, 2019 19 hours ago, CloudHands said: Plus methane is not mentioned  Hey. Only that first image is BP, I just picked randomly from bing image search. Seems to me that solar generation and others are not far away from being economically favourable so power generation should simply swap over fairly easily in a couple of decades.  Fossil fuels will become more and more expensive, they might soar, over time. To accelerate the swap over then more funding for renewal/sustainable is a good thing to do and campaign for, for the concerned.  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 25, 2019 There is another active climate change thread and this should be joined with that one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 25, 2019 21 hours ago, CloudHands said: Â Wack as fuck. I did not talk overpopulation, but lack of food. Â I'm out, no time for that kind of crap. Â Joe made the claim a few years back that the earth can sustain 50 billion people. With 7 billion plus now there is starvation, drought and crop failures. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted April 25, 2019 (edited) I must really stick in your craw pretty badly. Tragic but mildly amusing. Sorry ralis, I hated groupthink in preschool, though I think it took me until kindergarten to start becoming suspicious of the use of authority without reason. It is an innate part of my being that my gut has always reacted strongly against.  And whether you have faith in the collective ability of humans to resolve technical matters or not is another matter aside from where the future will take the planet. If your heroes win the game, then we can look to the georgia guidestones for how many people the earth will have - if my side winds, the sky's the limit, man  If Good wins (ya know, my side,) fine minds will devise the technology to support that number. If evil wins (ya know, the sick twisted progressive globalism stuff you believe in,) then its 1984, brave new world, and V for Vendetta all rolled into one for humanity    I agree that we should move towards better technologies - but there is simply no emergency that requires massive, massive subsidy (and malinvestment) meaning this absolutely has to happen asap within 10 years or we're going to burst into flames. That's just bad climate models missing the mark on fundamental pieces of input being extrapolated out until they blow up. Edited April 25, 2019 by joeblast Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rideforever Posted April 25, 2019 Something about over-population : "when I was young" one silver lining was that as countries develop they cease to need to have 5 or 10 kids and instead have 1 or 2.  Which seems okay to me, then the world pop would tend to a particular level. In Europe however, although this has happened, the globalists now which to artificially maintain or increase the populations in order to maintain the current growth economic model.  This seems not good to me, and will damage the natural tendency of a society to find a level it is comfortable with.  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites