The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Avoiding catastrophe will we do it?

Avoiding catastrophe will we do it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
The world’s population will increase by something like the figures predicted by the UN unless 1/3 of the current world’s population that is currently under child bearing age, ultimately decide not to have babies.

The question is can feed this increased population, the answer is yes with current technology we could, but this would require that we share the current production out equally, and stop wasting food. We have the crazy situation where something like 1/4 of the world has far too much to eat while the remaining 3/4 are not getting enough. In rich countries the food wastage is upwards of 30%.

The problem that Paul rightly points out is that with current technology the present path in the long term is not sustainable, primarily because the whole system relies on fossil fuels which are a limited resource and cause pollution. The ultimate limit to a sustainable population is how much clean affordable energy we can produce, materials such as metals and the like can be recycled, but not so energy. First we must transition to clean energy sources then we can see just how many people the globe can support. Again the head in the sand approach is not going to work.

Ultimately the great hope is some form of nuclear power, but in my view we are long from making this form of energy clean, safe, or economic but nevertheless it should be possible eventually.
Posted by warmair, Sunday, 5 January 2014 11:44:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul 1405,

Ah, << contemporary evidence >>, yes, I’d like some of that please.

From those << volumes of such evidence >>, could you kindly “evidence” some of the “projections” I’ve already tabled rather then whining and turning your rhetoric engine up to full volume?

Please start with “Polar bears, rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers, severe weather events, destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future, peak oil, peak food production, peak population, peak CO2, destruction of species, loss of reefs, coastal property inundation, economic doom, loss of jobs, third world annihilation, eco-refugees, acid oceans, disease and pestilence”.

When you’re ready, thanks.
Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 5 January 2014 12:00:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc, the evidence you speak of has been produced over and over again, countless times. However you choose not to accept that evidence, and are totally dismissive of it. It would be pointless offering the facts to you as your mind set is such that nothing would be acceptable.
I put forward my argument in a previous post, you read it, and then posted;
"Simple Paul. It is a forecast/projection brought to you by the UN. Like all UN “projections” they cannot be “true” until or unless they are proven to eventuate, therefore it is a lie."
This was then followed by a diatribe against the UN and myself, Anyone, such as yourself, who has to resort to such tactics as personal abuse to try and win an argument, shows their distinct lack of intelligence!
Instead of childish name calling why not come with an intelligent counter argument, or is that asking too much. What is your spin on all this, doc?
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 January 2014 8:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul 1405,

If the “evidence” is out there and has been produced countless times as you claim, surely you must have a link or something you can point us to , even on just one issue.

Lets make it really simple for you, start with dying Polar Bears.

Who did the original research? who were they working for? By whom was it “peer reviewed? What has happened to that researcher since? What other research was published on Polar Bear populations and by whom?

Since this is the sort of “evidence” upon which you base your opinion, how about sharing just a tiny piece of it with OLO?

To suggest I have closed my mind to evidence is wrong. I am skeptical of the evidence available to me however, if you can offer me something we can discuss it. What could be fairer than that.

Just anything you can point to on Polar Bears would be a great start.

Thanks
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 January 2014 7:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Paul 1405,

Just thought I’d help you out with the dying Polar Bear alarm. This leaves you free to pick one of your other alarms and get some of your “evidence’ together. Take your pick, I’m sure you have a favorite?

1. Who? Charles Monett

2. Peer Reviewer? His wife

3. Employed by? US Federal Government

4. What happened to him? He was stood down, taken to Federal Court, eventually cleared of misconduct but his research was trashed. Not even good enough to support take the Polar Bear to an endangered species listing. (Flawed forecasting principles, see below)

5. Who else did research? Just Google “Flawed Polar Bear Research”, “their numbers are at a high mark for the twentieth century and perhaps in history, having risen from around 5,000 at the middle of the century to more than 22,000 today”.

“Prof. Armstrong and his colleagues concluded that the most relevant study, Amstrup et al. properly applied only 15% of relevant forecasting principles and that the second study, Hunter et al. only 10%, while 46% were clearly contravened and 23% were apparently contravened.
Further, they write, the Geologic Survey reports do not adequately substantiate the authors’ assumptions about changes to sea ice and polar bears’ ability to adapt that are key to the recommendations.
Therefore, the authors write, a key feature of the U.S. Geological Survey reports is not scientifically supported.
The consequence, they maintain, is significant: The Interior Department cannot use the series of reports as a sound scientific basis for a decision about listing the polar bear as an endangered species.
Prof. Armstrong testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on January 30, 2008 in a hearing, “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm

http://www.wanliss.com/2011/08/inconvenient-polar-bears/
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 6 January 2014 9:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spindoc
In view of the title of this thread your list of potential disasters deserves a closer look.

Polar bears current situation
http://wwf.panda.org/_core/image_popup.cfm?uImg=polarbearmap2011_npi_453894.png
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/wildlife/polar_bear/threats/
Prediction if polar ice declines so will polar bear numbers.

Rising sea levels, melting ice caps, disappearing glaciers is well covered here and backed up by data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

Severe weather events
Far too vague to give an intelligent answer to, but nevertheless weather related insurance claims are on the rise.
http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/press_releases/2012/2012_10_17_press_release.aspx

Destruction of our grandchildren’s’ future
Data not yet available, you will just have to ask your grand children but I guess they won't be pleased with the damage we have done to the environment.

Peak oil
The principle is well understood and was originally proposed by M. King Hubbert
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
It is point a which maximum production is reached for a well or oilfield, usually referring to global production these days.
The price of oil has gone from $10 a barrel to around a $100 since about 2000. In another 15 years will it be $1000?

Peak food production
World wide production of food is highly dependant on oil for fertilizers, sowing, harvesting, and delivery. It would be a pity to waste it all on private transport.

Peak population
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/worlds-population-to-peak-earlier-than-expected/
We can only know this after the event but unless all women suddenly stop have babies population will not level out until sometime after 2050.

Peak CO2
http://www.igbp.net/news/features/features/havewereachedpeakco2.5.1b8ae20512db692f2a680003465.html
Depending on the level of human gross stupidity we could easily get to over 2000 ppm should we decide we are going to burn all the fossil fuels we can.
Even assuming the lowest possible figure for global warming due to CO2 that level increase global average temperatures by 10 deg C.
Posted by warmair, Monday, 6 January 2014 3:12:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy