http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/weather-events-will-be-catastrophic-un-report-outlines-climate-crisis-20190922-p52tsu.html
No not man made, please think out side that, is the climate changing
Will it be good or bad if it is
The link may not work if and when the thread gets a run, it is a report about today's report on climate change
Forget man made,is the climate changing
Yes in my view, will it be all bad? no in my view
The link mentions very dramatic increase in very bad weather, that would not be good
Is the climate changing in your view

I did not post this as a trap, have no intention of exploring man made climate change in this thread
But yes surely the climate is changing, if not please explain the world wide records broken
And too it always has changed, ice ages for a start
So do others agree it is changing
Will it be good in some places? will I or who ever follows be able to grow bananas here Avocados? please say yes to both
Is the climate changing

Dear Belly,

As an environmental sociologist I find it all very fascinating. Its interesting to study the effect that global warming and climate change are having on the human race and how people are debating not only the pros and cons of these but actually debating whether or not it is actually happening. Fantastic stuff! Really makes me happy I went into environmental sociology.

I research what scholars and scientists are saying and all the news coming out is pretty bad. Forget about the denialists. Twenty years ago they were getting a small following from the ignorant but now just about everyone treats them as a laughing stock. Why? Because people can now see unusual occurrences of severe droughts and floods and super storms that are ruining the planet they live in and they are not happy about it.

" is the climate changing"

Since it has been changing for the past 4 billion or so years, it'd be a miracle if it wasn't changing now.

So yes, the climate is changing. Basically its reverting back to something similar to the climate of that applied around 1000-1200 AD.

"Will it be good or bad if it is"

Deaths from climate-related catastrophes are down 99% from 1920 (http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-related-deaths-down-by-98-9-last-year-all-time-low/) so probably good.

The world getting greener due to CO2 fertilisation. So probably good.

Food production per capita rising....so probably good.

Dear mhaze,

You absolutely amaze me. As an environmental sociologist I try to walk an impartial objective line but you really take the cake. Sometimes I say to myself 'Ignore him, he's just an an engineer.' Where on Earth do you get your ideas from? Your logic and reasoning are just so ridiculous. The only thing I can really say for certain is that you and I are definitely not on the same level. If Socrates was alive today to hear the way you put your arguments together he would die laughing.

"Where on Earth do you get your ideas from?"

The FACTS. You should try it sometime.

"Socrates....would die laughing."

Well he actually did die laughing. But I suspect you know as much about Socrates as you know about sociology...sweet FA

Mr Opinion, I can't imagine how anyone could be so proud of having spent years with goobly gook studies so they can pretend they have a meaningful discipline.

Having said that would you mind not telling us you are an environmental sociologist in every post. I find the belief that such a description is meaningful quite nauseating.

Dear Hasbeen,

You let me refer to myself as an Environmental Sociologist and I'll let you refer to yourself as a Plastic Engineer. Fair enough?

If you had studied humanities instead of plastic engineering at uni you would know how to use English correctly.

'1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!
But I’m sure they are right this time !'

ha ha the science is settled.

Misopinionated,

Engineers tend to work with reality, real problems in the real world. They have to be cautious and careful about putting their plans into practice. Their responsibility is to be rigorous about what counts as evidence and what is instead hysterical BS.

No, I'm not an engineer, but a vagrant social scientist, with a special interest in Indigenous education over fifty years. So I know barely any more about the environment or climate than you do, i.e. bugger-all.

I look forward to the distant time when you write something meaningful beyond juvenile trolling.

Joe

Please lets leave man made climate change for another thread
I do want to know how others think, how will the current change effect us
Yes food growth will be far better in most or should I say some parts of the world
Far worse in others, yet over all it should be better
Never had a doubt the climate is changing
And getting hotter/colder/ more savage extremes
Is this drought just another in a country known for them
Or will this change bring a dryer country as standard
Will more rain fall in some parts we now can not grow food in? maybe so
Mr O what university did you gain your degree in?
I gained my education after failing at school, oh other than collecting the milk bottles after they had been emptied and burning the schools rubbish in the incinerator
But quite happy to have made it in the university of life, best school in the world

Dear Loudmouth,

In response to your remarks above: (1) I am also an engineer. (2) I am also an environmental sociologist researching the relationship between people and environment and subsequently I have developed a substantial knowledge of the environment. (3) What are your degrees?

Mr Self Opinionated Believes he knows all about climate, but he only knows one science.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4

He cannot tell us where the Earth is going to be covered in deep cloud next year hindering solar energy or if the Earth is going to experience such wind storms that every wind farm will be destroyed. Yet he believes the religious mantra, "we are doomed!" Will the sea rise to cover the Earth to a depth of 1,700 meters as it millions of years ago?

The climate is changing, Greenland will be green again to verify what it was like when it was founded. It has been through a mini Ice Age, and is now emerging to a warmer climate.

Dear Josephus,

You are a very strange person. A psychiatrist could write an entire case study PhD thesis on you.

Mr. Opinionated,
I might give my credentials here. In every intelligence test I have taken since six years of age my quotient has measured 152+. Yes I am strange, because I believe Genesis 8: 21-22. The final great catastrophe for man will be the sun fails to shine, and hell freezes over.

Check out Willie Soon as I posted.

Dear Josephus,

I'm not a fan of IQ ratings. I've seen school kids who had an average IQ go on to earn doctorates and kids who had high IQs drop out of uni and basically end up as bums. You have not mentioned that you have any degrees so I'm assuming you belong to the latter group.

Belly
Not sure what you were hoping to get out of your question. But perhaps the following references may assist: Hecht, A.D. and D. Tirpak, Framework agreement on climate change: a scientific and policy history. Climatic Change, 1995. 29(4): p. 371-402.
Coles, T.J., Privatised Planet. 2019, Oxford: New Internationalist Publications. and Trebeck, K. and J. Williams, The Economics of Arrival. 2019, Bristol: Policy Press.

Dear BAYGON,

You should include Bazz's recommendation to that reading list:

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.

The reason I refer you to these comes under the heading "Its the economy Stupid" Privatised planet documents how the post WWII globalization treaties (WTO, IMF, World Bank) were designed to ensure that British and US corporations had unfettered access to international markets. The Economics of Arrival points out that since 1970 we have been going backwards - the promises of unlimited economic growth have simply not been delivered. So what does this mean for climate change? One indication is the trend to environmental or ecological gentrification. In the Emerites they are building vertical farms that will supply enough fresh food for the rich and the militia to protect them. We have created a world where the rich can shield themselves from the worst impacts of climate change. The hunger Games have arrived!

BAYGON links would help, what am I trying to do?
Not sure myself, but knowing the ice is melting extreme weather is taking place
Maybe I am looking for confirmation [not of man made climate change] but of change its self
Hard not to see we are seeing change
And what are the impacts of that change
NSW Stockton Beach, Newcastle, lost two and a half meters of sand in one week
So that is one change of higher and heaver seas
Winter was milder here [good thing] harsher in other areas
What can we expect in the new normal?
Last? can we even agree the climate is changing?
What of the link? UN data says last five years hottest on record

Part of the perceived problem with a changing climate (and its always changing) is that man, quite naturally, assumes that the current or recent climate is normal and therefore any change is abnormal. So if the climate in my mid-life is different to the climate of my childhood (and it almost always is) then we assume its bad or potentially bad.

But what if the climate is merely reverting to a more normal state and the climate of the recent past was abnormal?

I mentioned earlier that temperatures appear to be returning to those that applied during medieval times while we think that, because they've risen from the mid 19th century this must be bad. But what if the temperatures of 1000AD were normal and those of 1850 we abnormal?

At the very least we know that the temperatures of 1000AD were better for human society than those of more recent centuries.

A similar notion can apply to rainfall and drought. The current drought is a pipsqueak compared to the federation drought at the end of the 19th century. But following that and particularly through the mid 20th century, rainfall was much higher than now and more widespread. So farmers expanded in to areas that became conducive to agriculture. But who's to say that those areas are normally conducive to agriculture. Maybe that good period in the mid-20th century was abnormal - good but abnormal. Maybe we are now reverting to normal.

But always we read that change is a problem. Why can't it be an opportunity? We now have the know-how and technology to adapt to any change, up or down, good or bad.

Instead of spending giga-sums on trying to halt the change, spend those same sums on adapting to it and indeed benefiting from it.

But its just not human nature to look at it like that.

Some people look at the Mona Lisa and see the smile. Others see the cracks in the paint.

Baygon wrote :"The Economics of Arrival points out that since 1970 we have been going backwards... "

Actually, the Economics of Arrival CLAIMS we have been going backwards. Well lets ask the coupla billion people who've been saved from abject poverty, famine, and an early death in that period if they agree with the assertions that we've been going backwards.

Also wrote :"... - the promises of unlimited economic growth have simply not been delivered."

Well I'm not sure how that can be proven when economic growth continues. We don't know that growth is unlimited as a matter of fact and never will. But we do know that there is no indication of growth stopping any time in the near future.

Its all just the same old Malthusian assertions which never ever come to pass.

G'Day there LOUDMOUTH...

Hi Joe

I agree with much of what you've said. I know bugger all about most things. Something I do pride myself on, I'm a pragmatist. In my view, there Planet we're on, will change as it has, since the beginning of time. Short of an immense nuclear war, I don't think we can do anything significant, that may hurt it.

We can assist in stopping local influences on the weather, like the smogs that regularly envelope Los Angles & other major cities around the world. Other than that, as a former detective, I smell big, big money being made, on this myth of climate change.

How do I know? Simply, my friend, you can't 'bullship a bull shipper'!

Dear mhaze,

I just can't stop laughing at the stuff you write. Typical engineer I tell myself. As thick as a brick.

Dear Josephus,

I've had IQ tests since the age of five and they have consistently come back at an IQ of 153+ but I don't ever strive for one-up-manship.

And your Genesis verse just says God won't annihilate us all again however we are doing this by our own hand.

Mhaze you seem to like facts. Although you challenge the accuracy of the economics of arrival the first fact that I draw your attention too is that you have not read it. Had you done so then you would have found facts such as these:
The McKinsey Global instituted reports that 81% of the US Population is an income bracket that experienced flat or declining incomes between 2005 -2014 (For other nations Italy 97%, Britain 70% France 63%.
Hardly a ringing endorsement for growth.
US graduates currently owe over a trillion dollars in student loans, another trillion in car loans and another trillion on their credit cards. This effectively means that these graduates are a step away from bankruptcy (you may recall the impact that Trump's decision to shut down government for a month or so had on many workers.)
You will find a broad consensus among economists that the decrease in the benefits of the growth began to occur around 1978.
I understand that you are an engineer in that case you would be familiar with the idea that here is a point of diminishing returns. In Australia we reached that point in the seventies.

IQ tests never stopped anyone from committing adultery or lying. Oh sorry I forget secularist don't believe in absolutes except for the gw nonsense they sprout.

Baygon,

I don't want to assist in having Belly's post side-racked so this will be my last on contribution your Malthusian fantasies. So...

1) I'm not an engineer. You obviously got that from MrO. But he's a certifiable moron. He just made up the claim and then managed to forget that he'd made it up and convinced himself it was true, because (and stop me if I repeat myself) he's a certifiable moron. And anyone who blindly follows the rantings of a certifiable moron is ...well I'll let you finish that sentence.

2)Not an engineer. My background is in international finance/economics. So some familiarity with this issue.

3) I have read as much as I could stand of this Economics of Arrival malarkey.

4) I note that you are going to completely ignore the massive advances in the world in the past half-century and concentrate on supposed stalled growth in some sectors in a few countries over a short time-frame. OK. Just so that we recognise that's what you're doing. Note that not all sectors in those countries stalled in that period and most of those countries showed overall growth in the period. Note also that, in the case of the USA for example, those sectors are now seeing renewed growth and optimism.

5)McKinsey Global institute? You really ought to acquaint yourself with this group. There's a Reuters article floating around somewhere which describes McKinsey's culture of corruption. I could probably dig it up for you if you are interested. They are consultancy firm and part of their shtick is to make things seem disastrous so that potential clients will beg for assistance. Yes there are some groups in the US etc that suffered stagnation for a decade or so. But not all groups and you need to note that there's plenty of evidence that peopled moved in and out of those groups over time.

6) Yes some groups owe a lot of money and that needs to be resolved. But that's a million miles from showing that overall world growth has stopped or is within cooee of stopping

Face it we all have views, those views are linked to our politics and for some at least true belief
But is the climate changing, can we believe the UN report, not how it was bought about, but that it is or is not
Why the extremes, why the heat cold floods droughts fires
Is climate change taking place
Yes in my view
Nothing else can take the constant records being reset away
But is it all bad,what part is good
What part is bad
IF we say no it is not we must find answers for those five years of new records, those melted ice sheets
Let us not confuse why it is taking place with my question is it taking place at all

Belly, Have a look at the Cyclone and wildfire trends in Willie Soon's charts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JJ3yeiNjf4

Strangr how regressives have always spoken about conservatives using the politics of fear. Now we have them using young kids as 'useful idiots' trying to scare the carbon out of people. So so funny if it was not so abusive.

One degree centigrade of warming over 170 years (puts Greta's melodramatic prattle in perspective). No push to develop nuclear power technology. Ocean fertilisation experiments banned by UN (insanity). EVs and solar still constrained by the available battery technology. The development of cheap solar has been good, but coal is still the cheapest round the clock electricity by far.

I was interested in AGW debate until it was hijacked by the left looking for a way to beat up on capitalism after the repeated failure of socialism.

Well we failed, my wish was to just talk about IF the climate was changing
Runner, far from alone, used it to preach his hate of everything not related to his warped view of Christ
Others insist on either linking it to man made climate change, or defending it from that
Is the climate changing
Leave the politics in the bucket at the door, enter the discussion armed only with you view it is or is not changing
Once there, most surely will think yes, tell us about the benefits of climate change
Then the bad out comes
I am not asking anyone, to drop their views on what is taking place, or why, but refraining from my own view being seen here
In the end I seek explanation for my question, answers as to its good points and bad

Belly

You need to learn to take yes for an answer.

The very first line in your opening post asked..." is the climate changing".

Some have said an explicit "yes".

No one has said an explicit "no" which means an implicit "yes".

So, I think, a general acceptance that the climate is changing.

So your question has been answered. Now what's next?

What's the cause? If its natural then there's bugger all we can do about it so let's set about adapting to it and/or benefiting from it.

The left believe they can win by closing down any opposition, and shouting down any opposition speaker. GetUp believes it is legitimate to use violence against an opponent.

The way to win this madness is keep on calmly telling the facts. Climate alarmism keep on screaming their religious mantra, "We are all doomed" "We will all be burned alive;" playing on the emotions of uninformed children. Stressing them out. They should be planting trees and picking up their rubbish, instead of expending useless energy chanting the Marxist agenda.

There are natural changes in the environment that we need to adapt to. In summer we plant a different range of crops, we take off the heavy coats, and we reverse the process in winter. If we suffer with tornados and wildfire we build housed that can cope with the situation. Man is adaptable to his environment, that is why we have carbon washers on coal fired power stations. Why we are able to use the energy of uranium, and adapt it to not cause harm

The climate changes with the enviornment changing. These are local changes to that local enviornment. Which means that if it changes for the worse due to mankind's involvement them people are to blame. This has occured several times throughout history that the eviornment gets worse because of people.

World wide climite changing though I'm not sold on. Too many false predictions and faulty science to trust the scientist claiming climite change and global warming. Nonetheless, we are building cities and concrete landscapes where there was once something else. The most notable observation of this landscape change is that tempatures rise in those areas with paved the roads, tall buildings and much less greenery.

Is this all there is for climite change? Bigger cities getting hotter? Or is it getting hotter in forests and deserts that don't have much man made I future and pollution involved. I don't think we have the data for remote areas without having to pollute the area by having more people travel there regularly.

Of course the climate is changing, & that is just as well for us. Remember it was once just a mass of semi molten muck. It will always change, & does not require any change in CO2 to do it.

I don't want to be unpleasant Not_Now.Soon, but have you ever been out of a city. I have to doubt it if you are worried about the "pollution" of man visiting anywhere in the bush. Stop worrying, the bush will be the same in 50 years regardless.

For example, have you ever heard of Torbanlea, or Burrum or Howard. The district was once the head of Queensland rail, as it was Queensland's major source of coal in the 1860s. There were 7 underground coal mines, & later a large power house. Railway lines crisscrossed the district running to these mines. Try to find one today.

Each mine had hundreds of acres of forest to harvest timber for pit props. Some was selectively harvested, but most was clear felled. A mate of mine bought 640 acres, [a square mile block], of the clear felled stuff in 1980. It was totally indistinguishable from adjacent totally untouched blocks, apart from the fact the trees that grew on clear felled areas grew straight & tall, competing for light.

He spent 4 years clearing 250 acres of this, earning a good living selling the logs for telegraph polls to the local coppers Logs factory.

It is not nature that is fragile, but the productions of man, & anyone who believes otherwise is a fool, has an objective they are pushing, or has never left a city.

m haze it is the links to why, I consider a failure, read again the posts
Yes most of us think the climate is changing my question was never why
I wanted to see the expected results positive and negative
Wanted to avoid even my own view as to why
It helps to know most agree it is changing
We need to think what are the implications
Not [in this thread at least] why it is changing
Hope that clears it up

Belly.

I think that the real and present danger is from bad government, not climate change. Look how fast bad government took Venezuela from South America's most prosperous country to one of the worst places to live on Earth. Why destroy our present on the basis of a prediction of what Earth might be like in eighty years?

I loved watching Greta Thunberg's scathing attack on the environmental criminals of the world at the UN yesterday. She hit the nail on head when she explained the reasons why humans are destroying the planet. Unfortunately her message mostly fell on deaf ears. The human race is inextricably locked into a system driven by global consumerism that cannot be stopped and will be the cause of the collapse of our global civilization.

'I loved watching Greta Thunberg's scathing attack on the environmental criminals of the world at the UN yesterday'

says Mr Opinion from the comforts and higher life expectancy that have been derived by mining. We know you love haters Mr Opinion and are happy to see young girls used and exploited by lying Marxist.

Dear runner,

You are one of the people Greta Thungerg was attacking in her address to the UN.

'You are one of the people Greta Thungerg was attacking in her address to the UN.'

Thanks for the compliment Mr Opinion. She obviously never got a spanking as a child. A spoilt privileged brat with a victim status bigger than her ego.

Dear runner,

Someone had to tell the world what you are. Just happens it came from the mouth of a young girl who is representative of how the younger generation of the world feel about people like you.

Only a fool, or a sociologist could take seriously the opinion of a still wet behind the ears school girl, who needs a couple of decades of experience to learn which way is up.

Dear Hasbeen,

Unfortunately for you, she is right and you are wrong. Plus you are what one would call an environmental criminal and she is not.

what one would call an environmental criminal
Mr Opinion,
You really suffer badly from perception distortion. An environmental criminal is one who condemns another for producing the commodities the criminal demands & uses, the production of which contributes to pollution !
Hypocrite is actually a more apt term & you are one perfect example ! Perhaps you're not of a criminal disposition but your ignorance definitely borders on criminal !

Dear individual,

You too are one of those that Thunberg was attacking: an environmental criminal. Turning a blind eye to environmental degradation and species extinction makes you just as guilty as the actual culprit.

We oldy,s have trouble staying on track in talking about anything
We let personal bias and politics rule
Over night, just about any night lately, we heard more bad news from the UN this time
I mentioned the Near Newcastle Beach,not by far the only beach threatened or destroyed in our history
But surely [leave man made out please]'
far from the last
3mm a year, that we are told is the amount the sea rises, for what ever reason it is rising, [please do not use out dated data to rubbish that truth]
A post above highlights a totally different concern, but in the end it matters, world population and bad governments
But while climate change is taking place it can not be blamed for every thing

Belly you remember Newcastle in in a earthquake zone, The plates move up or down. Stockton Beach might have sunk a little.

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa, is doubling down on the UN’s “solution” to “global warming.”

The above refers to one of the most guilty polluters. She'd travel more, live in great comfort & use more petroleum based commodities than most peopple could only imagine.

Trump tweeted about Greta...

"She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! "

Troll level - grand master.

My screen got covered in coffee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlgIa7PLmHg

Watch this !

No, sorry we are again talking about man made, not the simple fact the climate is changing
Stockton is not a victim of an earthquake that took place years ago
The SEA brought about the removal of the sand
Maybe because it was extremely rough, maybe because it is higher than it once was
But no one can say for sure climate change had anything to do with it
THINK what are the likely effects of the climate change we mostly agree is taking place
Leave what causes it to the brand new thread started today

Belly,

You can't divorce questions as to likely consequences from the questions as to the cause of the current climate changes.

The consequences are utterly dependent on the causes.

You, believing the CO2 story, assume the warming will continue. Therefore you see growing problems as per the worst of the alarmists.

That's only true if the cause for the warming is CO2.

BUT, if the warming is natural, then the consequences are likely to be very different. If its natural then the warming will either be mild and/or will reverse at some point. Indeed many of those in the natural camp, think the reversal of the late 20th century warming has already began, and, therefore, the consequences will be those associated with a cooling planet.

To draw a rather weak analogy...you want to discuss the consequences of a couple having unprotected sex while trying to ignore issues as to whether the bloke's had a vasectomy.

Just saw the 'Australian'headline "Greta Thunberg Phenomenon". This is so typical of the Media. Using the wrong words to distort fact. There is no Greta Thunberg Phenomenon, merely a Greta Thunberg hype !.
She'll make a few people very wealthy, petroleum products n'all !

OK tried but it never got off the ground I refuse to believe any difference exists in impacts if it is or is not man made or natural climate change
Stand by for another record breaking hot summer
The worst east coast bush fires in our nations known history
Both, with no impact on why, are about to hit us because, not because of man made but because of change
We have always lost coast lines and it will continue
But increase in ocean height and more bigger storms will see more
Man made or not the results are clear
We will see sea creatures in areas we did not once see grow food in places we once would not try

Hey Belly,
Sometimes I fight for one side of the argument;
But then people can move too far to side of the argument I support;
- And then I feel like I have to jump ship to push it back the other way, to keep things balanced.

This is one of those times;

Usually my comments regarding climate change are well...
- Not at all supporting of the climate change agenda -
I think it's all part of a greater plan for globalism.

But that said, I won't ignore arguments that hold merit.

Quote "I refuse to believe any difference exists in impacts if it is or is not man made or natural climate change"
"Both, with no impact on why, are about to hit us because, not because of man made but because of change"

One argument that holds merit I can't ignore is:

Don't think we humans aren't capable of taking a few bulldozers through a rainforest and turning it into deserts,
- Because we are.

Don't think we're not capable of pumping waste into the ocean and destroying fish breeding habitats;
which has an effect on bird populations etc; and stuffing up the whole food chain;
- Because we are.

- And now I shall return to my usual 'anti-climate-change' position -

Record bush fires, record water shortage etc. Why does no-one mention record population, record water usage, record arsen etc ?
There are no records broken, only records created by too many people being too stupid = selfish !

Individual indeed however I have often
In fact think over population is part of the reason we see climate change
Arm Chair Critic, they will think we are mad!
But you are on to something here
We know that secretive group I can not spell, the one of the very rich holding meetings we know nothing of exist
Some will never understand the whole history of western man has had powerful people behind the scenes pulling the strings
Closed minds help them pull the wool over all our eyes
Find that American monument, the one claiming a future world population will be far less than in one Australian city
Explain its mantra to me, tell me such a group could not be out to divide us so when it offers Dictatorship to solve hunger and war we will not say better than what we have?
Keep your mind open, never let the planted idiotic conspiracy's blind you to the very real ones

Hey Belly,
That would probably be the Georgia Guidestones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

(FYI, I'm not sure who built it or what their specific beliefs are.)

" I refuse to believe any difference exists in impacts if it is or is not man made or natural climate change"

Can you clarify that?

Are you seriously saying that if the change is natural which might then lead to a period of cooling, that you think the consequences will be the same as a continued warming?

That makes no logical sense so please explain.

Hey Belly,
Here's the correct link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Sorry for getting 'conspiritorial', but I got curious, as I do;
And I just happened to click on the picture in the section entitled 'Explanatory tablet';
Here's a link to the picture here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones#/media/File:Georgia_Guidestones_10.jpg

It says: (written on 4 separate sides of an engraved rectangle)
Egyptian Hieroglyphics; Babylonian Cuniform; Classical Greek; Sanskrit
And in the middle of that rectangle, it says:

'Let these be guidestones to an age or reason.'

Now, I'm pretty sure the thing that's common with Egyptian and Babylonian is Luciferianism, or Satanism maybe;
Or Mysticism or Mystery religions maybe.

Maybe its some Masonic stuff or something, I'm not sure.

But this 'Age of Reason' thing most likely relates to Thomas Paine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason

I found this:

http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=FinalWarning&C=1.3
"Thomas Paine, author and political theorist, helped the Illuminati infiltrate several Masonic lodges. He revealed his loyalty to them when his book The Age of Reason was published in 1794 which dealt with the role of religion in society. Although he believed in God, he could not accept the entire Bible as being fact. A second volume was published in 1796. An unofficial third volume subtitled: Examination of the Prophecies also appeared, which seriously questioned the deity and existence of Jesus. In 1937 The Times of London referred to him as 'the English Voltaire'."

I don't think the Egyptians had anything to do with all that, there was simply a highly advanced civilisation that happened to exist in what we now call Egypt. Going by the Egyptians of today,
they could not possibly have had anything to do with that early advanced mob !
Northern Africa/Middle East would have been a food bowl until either climate change or human mismanagement turned it into a dust bowl.

Just got this in an email.

According to the Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience (AIDR) (emphasis is mine)…

‘Drought conditions prevailed over eastern Australia from 1937 to 1945. They first emerged at serious levels in 1937, with New South Wales, Victoria, much of Queensland and parts of Western Australia affected. Isolated parts of New South Wales, notably in the central west, suffered record low rainfall...

‘In Victoria, a very dry six month period provided the right conditions for the disastrous Black Friday bushfires in January 1939.

‘…dry weather occurred again and 1940 was one of the driest years of the century over most of the southern parts of the country. Dams were empty in New South Wales and Brisbane had water restrictions.

‘By April 1945 most Victorian water storage facilities were empty, the Murray river ceased flowing at Echuca and Adelaide faced water shortages.’

I am far more worried about the declining koala population. Australia would be in a far better position to protect them with coal fired power generation than by destroying the economy with renewables.

AC indeed that is the one, consider this, built in was it 1980, and no one knows for sure why?
And how much did it cost?
Mhaze well you need an answer but in truth my thoughts are these
Change is here the impacts are too no matter the reason they are what I see as existing right now, no matter the cause
Hope that helps

"Change is here the impacts are too"

But we're talking about the future impacts not the current ones. You wanted to know about the consequences. Well the consequences are very different if the world is warming as compared to if its cooling.

If you can't see that then I don't know how to explain it any better.

Individual, just out of interest I compared my local record to your post. This is south of Brisbane approaching the NSW boarder, behind the coastal ranges. It is different to your post, but most interesting when studied, looking for any signature of a CO2 rainfall effect. The figures are official Bureau figures for Beaudesert.

Such a signature is totally missing. Our records are as follows.
Driest years in order.
This year is the driest to date, since 1889, just 2 years after the biggest flood in living memory. However full year in order the driest all below 505mm.

1994....457mm
1902....459mm
1993....475mm
1926....501mm
1915....548mm
1960....569mm

Conversely the wettest all above 1200mm
1893....1726mm
1947....1418mm
1989....1329mm
1921....1288mm
1961....1276mm
1939....1259mm
1983....1225mm
1967....1206mm

I defy any of our greenies, or even an illustrious "climate" scientist to find any pattern in that lot. Great as they are at torturing data, they won't find anything to blame on CO2 in any of it.

Greatest rainfall in a single month in 120 years, 507mm in March 2017, which filled lots of houses as well as every dam. This fact surely shows that ratbag Flannery as a conman, or a total fool at least.

mhaze you are talking about the future me? now
Hasbeen, nice to see your faith in figures how about the latest as told this week from the UN
Too what part of recent, say 200 years, ice melt is on Parr with today's

Hasbeen,
I don't think Flannery actually does any research, I think he just collects the information most suitable to his agenda & that's what people then believe as Gospel truth. Most academic characters operate like that. All second hand !
I'm adjacent to forest & the last few days the Rain Bird has screamed its head off, a sign of a decent Wet coming up. All the nutrients from kitchen sinks & bathrooms will get washed out to the GBR & the old Farmer will get the blame again for Coral bleaching etc.

The Feds in Canada destroyed records showing temps were higher back in the 1800's claiming they were inaccurate. No shame with the gw fraudsters. Just lies, tantrums, name calling and deceit. No wonder they are now retorting to child abuse.

'The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment 'Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period..'

just for those interested in facts. See a totally deceitful pattern with this religion
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-feds-scrapped-100-years-of-data-on-climate-change?fbclid=IwAR2dnqR7ftGmPqrlPeCLll_6HViOGsNhSaT0NTuRDj1NocjDVoA0NfFyiWs

Belly,

Your very first post in the thread read...
"Forget man made,is the climate changing
Yes in my view, will it be all bad? no in my view"

Repeat "WILL it be all bad".

ie "will" means future. So yes we were talking about future consequences. I understand that you don't want to talk about that now because it means talking about things you're trying to avoid, but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to pretend otherwise.

Belly, figures representing simple measured facts are the only argument. The rest is is simply conjecture. If you don't believe that, why are you interested in the figures on ice status.

When I have some spare time, I'll have a look at the true facts on ice. Don't expect the truth to be even close to any UN politicking. The only stuff they publish is cherry picked to fit their global government ambitions.

mhaze/ Hasbeen you no me introduced man made in to this
I remain convinced change is real
Too that both positive and negatives will and are resulting
Mhaze yet again you ask questions that I see as weird
Confront me on facts, not neatly built conspiracy you see [after making] in my comments

Figures are merely provided by people, they have nothing to do with facts !

OK Belly, you don't get it.

We all agree the climate's changing.

The consequences of the change depend utterly on its causes. But you don't want to talk about the causes because it always goes bad for you. Trying to talk about the consequences of a problem without knowing the background to the problem is impossible or at best misleading.

What are the consequences of unprotected sex? Surely you understand that you need to know the background. Is it man-women sex? Are both fertile? Is it man-man sex?. Woman-woman?

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

mhaze mate! do you understand?
Are you aware your constant verbal nit picking is a bit mad
YOU do not know, can not tell me, if the change is forever, if it will worsen, if it will be good or bad
What causes it is the subject of another active thread

Surprising enough this thread and m haze have been on my mind
Pottering around out side, [still making two Budgie Averys for a fast growing population] it irks me
See from post one I made it clear I thought we should not talk about why the climate is changing
Wanted to know if others think it is
And as most of us think it is what are the impacts
IF we talk about why it is changing we will gather under our flag [political viewpoint] and squabble
Other threads give us that ground to insult each other
What are the impacts, the bad the good the chances of increased drought or indeed more rain in some areas

How many of the protesting children would give up computer games to go emissions neutral?

the above is from Daily reckoning

There's an idea of confirmation bias that can be applied to climite change. The example I'll offer is a phenomena of bad things happening on Friday the 13th or that crazies come out on full moons. On both of these phenomenons people focus on the bad things or the weird things more on those types of days then they regularly focus on it throughout the year. Because they are looking for it, this makes every example of weirdness or of badness seem like it proves that full mons and Friday the 13th are sketchy times. But nothing is actually compared to see if these times are any different then the rest of the year that wasn't the focus.

The same idea can be applied to climate change. The idea of climate change and global warming is so widespread when there's an example of a hot day people think it's proof, or an example of wildfires then it must be proof. However, context is overlooked to see if this is how it usually is at that time of the year or if actual change occured outside of a focus and confirmation bias.

I honestly don't know what to say if climate change us happening or not because our observations are obscured by changes in the seasons, and by the issue being politicized instead of actually collecting data. The thing is that bad weather happens and has happened for longer then any of us have been around. Is it worse now or not to show a climate change on a world wide scale, or is it as it has always been but more focus on the Hurricanes, the earthquakes, the heat and cold as a bias to cherry pick proof of climate change.

I stand firm in the idea of localized climate change is real. We change our environments and that likely has greater influences in those local areas. World wide climate change thought may be nothing more then all our tempatures readings cron from large cities that are getting hotter due to our paving away the landscapes for roads and skyscrapers.

NNS sorry lost me, like your posts but not able to get that in my head
Climate change, here in my view is why we fight over it
Fake News
A term invented by the right, who made it to use it to cast doubt on anything said they disagree with
In fact they use Fake News TO LIE and then say the other side is using their product, Fake News
Confusing? great! that is exactly what they hoped to achieve
Nothing can be taken on face value, no one can trust any one, Fake News worked
We most of us the thinking ones know the climate has changed and seems to be continuing to
We too know some gain and some pain will result
Individual thinks kids using computers should not have opinions, even maybe bringing that change about
Climate is important, it serves us, we dare not think other wise

Individual thinks kids using computers should not have opinions
Belly,
Where/when did I say that ? Are you recruited by Fake News ?

Belly, your definitions are not clear.

The Left supported by the views of the UN wish to demonise mining and processing as a bad thing because it makes few people wealthy. So burning carbon is identified as the cause of climate change by the left. However carbon is the basis of all living tissue. However changes to climate is part of a natural process, not a human process.

From processing steel and minerals by the burning of coal carbon is released, so carbon is the new demon. They want to control all wealth and place people under one governing body and one world view - Marxism. Climate change fanatics only focus on coal, oil and gas because it is used to process steel and create electrical energy. The Left want to control over wealth creation, because the wealth is only amassed by a few.

There is changes happening in the Earth climate and it is minimally caused by carbon emissions. If people recycled properly all their disposables, the oceans and land would not be polluted. But that is not changing the climate, it is changing the health of the oceans, air and land. It has only been recent that man has learned to place scrubbers on particulate emissions from burning. However large part of humanity still pollute waterways and land in ignorance or laziness of their behaviour.

Hey Belly,

The right invented the term 'fake news' in response to the corporate media selling fake news.
The left and the corporate media then appropriated the term for themselves;
- to draw attention away from the hometruths the right were exposing.

This is what the left like to do, and it's Hillary Clinton's MO especially.

- Accuse others of doing the stuff that you're doing -

Hey Belly,
- A bit more info on my last comment;
Pretty sure that kind of thinking came from Sail Alinsky's 'Rule's for Radicals';
- Which is what Hillary Clinton wrote her college thesis on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_for_Radicals

AC rubbish truth is fake news is an invention of the right, glad to see it has you confused, fake news was invented to confuse
Josephus,from post one I asked this thread not be about cause, not changing that to suit your wish to divert it
We have established the climate is changing
We see some bad points in today media, two surf clubs in different states lost beaches
Now another cause can be put, why build so close to beaches
' 50 meters lost in the last two years by one
Some growers are letting fruit trees die, because they have no water,[ABC Landline] other are [in different areas] planting new crops because they now have it

Some growers are letting fruit trees die, because they have no water
Belly,
You really need to think of the words you're using. Farmers don't let fruit trees die, the trees die because the farmers can't get water.

indy? you tell me why a current third generation farmer went on landline and told us he is walking off the farm
Letting the trees die, because he has no water, the water he had has dried up and his license to irrigate taken Away
Not near the only farmer in his area letting the fruit trees die because they do not have water'
His words not mine you can not put the trees to sleep and waken them when/if it rains they die

"AC rubbish truth is fake news is an invention of the right, glad to see it has you confused, fake news was invented to confuse."

Belly,
I've been using the alternative media as my primary source of global news for over a decade.
I haven't even watched free to air tv in over 5 years in you can actually believe that.
I know what was going on, and where and how the term 'fake news' was used long before your news brought the term into mainstream usage.

You should really stop watching the news you watch, which is total excrement and go for something that has some independent analysis and where the person who brings you the story actually researches the news themselves instead of reading a teleprompter and paid to essentially lie or omit facts.

Why don't you go and find out what real news looks like?
Here's what I just watched earlier.
22mins of well presented facts you wont even get on pay channels.

Turkey's Erdogan Exposes The Israeli Government & The Suppressed Truth Of Its Origin
http://youtu.be/elEqZRbfLvM

AC I would not trust Turkey's Erdogan words, he murdered journalists.

Hey Josephus,
I'm not sure that anyone actually trusts Erdogan, I wouldn't;
- But whether a person is trustworthy or not is largely irrelevant when they're telling the truth and making valid arguments.
I just wanted to show Belly different styles of news reporting.

I probably shouldn't have added that video, because it's not on the topic of 'Climate'.
So I'll give you something else instead, the other video I watched yesterday.

You Are Being Scammed Kids And This Is How (And Why)
http://youtu.be/nYQELux2QnA

Armchair Critic, you admit to reading Fake News? see conspiracy's are being used [clearly untrue] to blind and confuse
And it works
Look at my links, those posted in the Trump thread are from the best in journalism
American and here, they are the very words, some times even from Republicans, about Trump
Back to thread,we are being fed fake news on this subject, to confuse
My view in time, some plan to end those wars, get better governments in those country's, will take place
I fear it will be imposed Dictatorship
Fake News exists, those using it developed it, and confusion is planned wanted, out come

Idealism is the worst alternative to incompetence !

indy another case of your bias and inability to post much worth reading?

Belly,
I won't change my way just because you're too thick to understand !

I've been looking at temperatures in Australia and came across this site: http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Lance-Pidgeon.pdf
Teachers in Alice Springs have been supporting children in believe the Earth is burning this was reported by the ABC. So I decided to look at the facts. I was in Alice in the 1960-61 and during the summer could only work outside from first light till 10am. You dare not take a shower in the day as the water in the pipes was almost boiling. That the temperatures in the Alice are hotter than any time in Earth history as stated by the aboriginals on ABC is questionable.

Josephus so you had faith in teachers?
Little [then at least] country town Yerinbool NSW one room school
Teacher had a ww2 machine gun set up at the door,my siblings went there not me [working away]
Near every lesson was about his time in a POW camp
Teachers union is as far left as you can get, true
But what ever they teach and clearly it some times is wrong,climate will continue to be unconcerned
We here said it is changing we agreed on that,we, most of us, remain staying away from cause can achieve other things in this thread
BUT if you want to say it is not changing go right ahead
PS my last School was next to Yerinbool, Yandera [then even smaller] one room one teacher, my attendance rare
He came up with the bright idea to send us boys out cutting and bagging fire wood!
To raise the cash for an engagement ring!
He latter became head master of the rather big regional high School!

Josephus,
The real problem lies with the latest generation who can't cope without coal burning power, petroleum based commodities & above all, Air-conditioning.
Like you, I too recall in 1979on the islands up north, having to stop working because it simply got too hot by lunch time.
The little snowflakes in our Universities melt just at the sight of sunlight now after being stuck in front of LCD screens all day !

Hey Belly,

I knew I should've known better than to check YOUR links.
I had to shake my head in disbelief...

The first link was a CNN story with no author attributed.
Fake news Number 1. I'll pass.
The second one, opinion piece by an editorial team, also had no authors attributed.
If they can't put their name on it, It aint worth reading. Pass
Third one had an author but was an opinion piece and didn't really contain news, just focussed on Trump's use of the word 'treason'.
- An interesting observation, but hardly journalism.
The fourth one from Nick O'Malley, this looked like it may have been readable, buy by then I'd already lost patience.
The fifth was a piece by Slate.
They're left leaning and close enough to corporate media to not be trusted, though I really shouldn't judge the article without reading it.

I'm not sure any of these articles were even non-bias, let alone actual journalism.

In my personal opinion, the best journalist right now is:
- A no-name girl from Chile named Whitney Webb, and she writes articles for Mint Press.
http://www.mintpressnews.com/author/whitney-webb/

The best mainstream journalist on Trump was Sara Carter, though I'm not sure if she still is or whether her articles are biased towards Trump. I got my info before they even did from George Webb on YouTube.
Haven't read anything from Sara in a while though.
http://saraacarter.com/

My 'conspiracy' news is the one that tells me things years before you find out about it, that is if you find out at all.

Of course I don't just eat what I'm spoon fed Belly.
I get to choose the programs I feel hold the most merit.
And as far as daily news report is concerned 'The Last American Vagabond' on YouTube is pretty good.
He adds links to everything he discusses on his daily show, so you can fact check the source.

AC I told you in another place very very real conspiracy's exist
Too that very very fake ones do too, because faith in the true ones would be earth shattering
So sewing the clearly idiotic to confuse and confirm, in some minds all conspiracy is fake
Be careful, yes ask the history of banking why the Fed is privately owned
Even that Buildernburg, know the spelling is not right exists
It started to put America in a better light, but why the world rich and influential need to meet in secret?
Individual saw your post need a break from those snide unfocused and untrue posts see you in time but not today

need a break from those snide unfocused and untrue posts
Belly,
For a start you need to take a good long look at yourself if you don't want insults for insults.
I merely throw back what's thrown at me ! Take a good look at your posts & see who throws the first stone every time !

Australian first nation people grew food, yes they did, harvesting grass seed and turning it to food
They would not have enough land to do it today
Parts of the world ARE over populated, denying that for me is unwise
We are only at the start of refugee flows we can not yet think possible
Starvation if a big war broke out, in Asia and Africa beyond dreadful
In fact the day is coming when world governments will tell us over population must be stopped

Belly,

Well, they GATHERED grass seed. That's what hunters and gatherers do. Don't believe every idiotic idea that you hear.

Probably nowhere in the world is over-populated except in some university departments. There are so many other factors as you allude to. What looks like over-population is more likely to be a function of poor technology or civil war and social breakdown - change these factors and bingo ! - no more 'over-population'.

No offense, but 'over-population' is a half-wit's 'explanation'. What worries me more is the 'remedies' that such half-wits propose, usually requiring compulsion, compulsory sterilisation, or worse, of people in developing countries. Think again, Belly.

Joe

Joe

Your logic and reasoning are just so ridiculous.
Mr Opinion,
Why not just admit you don't understand ?

I remain convinced parts of the world are over populated
Too reasons include marginalized land drought and less rain as the new normal in some places
Any thought I would ever support and death for some as the answer is quite mad
In time population will be the new fighting ground every bit as much as climate change and pollution too will be the same

Dear Belly,

There are many compelling arguments put forward for
a reconstruction of the hunter-gatherer label for
pre-colonial Aboriginal Australians. There is
evidence from a variety of sources that insists
that Aboriginal people right across the continent
were using domesticated plants, sowing, harvesting,
irrigating and storing - behaviours inconsistent with
the hunter-gatherer tag.

But of course a person has to actually read and study
these sources in order to form a different opinion to the
one we've had presented to us in the past.

Belly,

For gods sake, read this:

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

The birth rate in Asia is below replacement rate. It is below the world birth rate. The birth rate in European countries is very much below replacement rate. Populations are rising slowly in many of those countries only because people are living longer, not because people have too many babies.

In time, that deficit birth rate will translate into deficit population growth, i.e. in, say, 20 or 30 years, populations in Europe will start to decline, followed by China. Populations in other Asian countries will follow by a decade or two.

So total world populations could stabilise in fifty years, and start to decline before 2100. Sleep well.

Joe

Loudmouth! claiming my right to an opinion
One clearly different than yours
That here in OLO for some, is a capital crime
Such demands for closed minds, is funny
However take it further if every one must only have the same views we are doomed
Climate impacts on parts of the world, in such a way it lives hand in hand, with over population
Is the standard of life in every Asian country better for the huge[ despite you posted truth]number of people living there
Could/should this country continue to grow until we have that size population?

Belly,

I fully support your right to be a bigot, to have opinions which are never shaken by evidence, and to keep a closed mind. I don't think it does you any good, you'll still be a bigot tomorrow, I expect, but it's your right.

And perhaps you can join the dots between climate change and the bogeyman of over-population ?

And for the record, just where do you think over-population will occur ?

Joe

Joe,

And yet for some strange reason a young woman
pointing out unpleasant truths and asking
officials to step up and take steps to save the
planet is exceptionally triggering to largely older
white men on the right.

And boy - are they flailing in their attempts to respond.

"This is child abuse. Greta Thunberg is being cruelly
manipulated by her parents. She's mentally ill."

While millions of supporters gather around the globe
to protest alongside of her.

We all have our rights - that's true - but we need to
also acknowledge that we desperately need to seek
solutions to climate change, water scarcity, pollution,
over population, Third World poverty, if true sustainability
is to be achieved on our planet.

Foxy,

So how is over-population a problem on its own, rather than government corruption and incompetence, civil wars, etc. ? How is it associated particularly with pollution ?

Please try to understand that the world birth-rate is currently just above replacement rate, and population is growing more from longer lives than more births ? The world may have almost reached 'peak child', i.e. its maximum birth-rate. India has almost reached ZPG, China has probably already reached it, and Europe and Russia and Japan have birth rates below replacement rate ? That populations are still growing mainly because of medical advances and longer life expectancy ?

So with all that, where is there over-population ? Please don't say Africa.

Joe

Joe clearly I got you wrong you in fact are one of the aged wheel chair warriors who consider any thought other than your own wrong
Believe the loudmouth I thought I knew before my time in the spelling paddock was a much better person
BIGOT, new slant on thinking we should make a better life for every one
HIGHLIGHTING those you are defending
A truth exists here the west seems to [and you] keep some in the dark ages but profit from their country's
Climate, name what ever you want for its existence change that is
But in the end man has not yet got the power to stop the changes

Joe,

If you look up the internet world stats - they'll
tell you that China population growth from 2000 -
2019 has increased by 11.2% (the China population
data is for mainland China only).

That India's population growth from 2000 - 2019
has increased by 36.0%.

That the US has increased by 16.6%. Indonesia - by 25.9%.
Pakistan by 34.2%. Nigeria 62.1 %. Bangladash by 30.5%.
Mexico by 32.6%.

The total world population has increased by 25.6%.
And the total World Population predicted for 2050 -
is - 9,374,484.225 and rising.

Temperatures will increase by 1.4C to 5.8C over the next 100 years.
The earth's population is expecting to exceed nine billion.
One quarter of the world's mammal species are threatened
by extinction.

Are these problems?
Not for some it seems.
They won't be around.

9,374,484.225 and rising.
Foxy,
there's the problem, so what do you think people will do about it ?

Individual,

They will do one of two things:

1) Hopefully they will seek solutions.

Or

2) They will continue as they have done to date.
making political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bearing the costs and slowing down any economic
growth. Control of pollution is politically difficult
for the economic interests behind "smokestack"
industries are a powerful political lobby that is
reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task.

Foxy,
1; they'll forever seek solutions because
2; the consumers keep demanding.

Loudmouth has clearly put his own thoughts about my suggestion in to my mouth
Fact is while both he and I have dragged the over population thread in to this one, I never ever thought any racism was the answer
I do think climate is in part reason for some parts of the world being over populated
BUT my thoughts never ever got close to calling for the gas oven,s to resolve my concerns
NEVER blamed any race for the what I see as a problem
Yes I do, firmly, think we must address both issues, but want, [an unlikely event in today's world] fairness equality to be the rules
Maybe rewarding those who use birth control
Maybe financial punishment for those who do not
China once had its one child policy,that and Asia's preference for boy child's, left a shortage of women, impacting both country's still

This ex Socialist pushing for my party to become again the center it needs to be thinks this
Pain and all, and boy it would bring pain, this world best hope is becoming one world one people
It is my view we are divided by faith not color, that leaning to live as one together, is an out come worth fighting and dieing for, my view is humanity has some evolving to do yet
So racist? give me a break
My family include many from all over the world and that includes first nation brides and one groom
CLIMATE never should have seen racism dragged in to it, but it is an important subject we seem for the most part to have handled well my thanks to ALL contributors

Dear Foxy,

You are correct and your critics are totally wrong. Reason is that, like myself, you have the education and critical thinking skills that they do not have.

One comment I do make is that according to some commentators it appears that the population figure of 9.4 billion will be reached before 2050 and might even hit 11 billion by 2045. You are spot on with the temperature predictions and if the mean global temp rises 6 deg C above the pre-industrial figure then some parts of the planet will actually begin to boil.

Mr Opinion if the planet temperature rises by 6 percent in your given time we are in trouble
Too if, and I think it is assured, the population grows to eleven plus billion?
Bet on it the whole thing will become bigger than the climate change debate world wide
Endless population growth in part, will drive pollution and climate change

Belly,

Population growth is slowing down rapidly and will stabilise in the next twenty years or so, with growth being mainly because of greater life expectancy, i.e. lower mortality rates. Birth numbers may have peaked and will decline from here on.

https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Ignore it if you like.

Joe

When population growth bursts at countries' borders it'll be too late to act. We can't afford any more refugees ! They need to stand up against their oppressors.

In the past disease and poor diet held the aboriginal populations at low numbers, around 200,000, with an expectant age at death around 50 years. At present about 800,000 population identify as Aboriginal and with our health care and intermarriage live longer and there is less infant death. The question remains are we going to develop science from our resources and intelligence, or return to the hunter gatherer economy with lower population, life expectancy, and infant death. We stand today with the use of coal as our greatest social development.

Individual/Josephus I will NEVER be convince lowering the birth rate of native peoples is even near a sane answer
BUT indy has it right, in time we will see over population for what it is a very real threat to at least the living standards of humanity
We can not keep our waste under control right now, it will only get worse
Bringing enough refugees here, and by doing it making our country over populated is mad
Humanity we all, or should, put it first and in controlling population we do far better than just ignoring the truth
We lift standard of living not crush it

Sorry, that should be

http://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate

Loudmouth,
Well, those graphs send a shiver down any thinking human's spine !
I suppose the ignorant do-gooders will just keep harping on about Climate change & keep disrupting everything they can instead of disrupting their silly thinking !

Hands up! its me! I am you know and ignorant do good-er
And so very proud to be one, I am concerned about climate, afraid of over population
Think both threaten long time life on this planet
Ignorant do good-er
Best if I just like so many left the whole subject to those who could not care less

Belly,
I'm afraid I can't fathom your last post !

Belly,

There are two main parts to populations growth - births, and longer lives (i.e. lower death rates).

Which one are you concerned about ?

We are reaching the time when the annual number of births will flatten out, and then start to slowly fall, as the world's population reaches an average zero population growth (i.e. as populations in some countries decline, while they keep growing in others).

With medical advances, better food, better standards of living, etc., people around the world are living longer. Life expectancy in Japan and South Korea is now double what it was after the War.

Both factors kick up population numbers. The first factor was dominant between, say, 1800 and 2000. The second factor will be dominant from now on, until 'peak age' is common - after that, the population will decline, and maybe fairly quickly.

'Over-population' is becoming a non-issue. Often the most densely-populated countries are amongst the most advanced. And they happen to be the ones where population is actually declining, i.e. Europe.

Rest easy.

Joe

'Over-population' is becoming a non-issue.
Loudmouth,
That depends which side of the border you're on. If you're on the side which will be invaded by the masses escaping from the over-populated side then Over-population will be a huge issue rather than a non-one !

Both loudmouth, please include the current overall population of the world
Then add in my view many parts are already over populated
Continue to explore my view constant growth will make it worse
May be room left to consider pollution will it get worse? we fail to fix it now will we get that right if the population is ten billion
What [if it exists] is your view of the Goldilocks number, how many do you think we can manage?
Unfortunately if you post a number it supports my view there is a limit

Individual and Belly,

So population 'growth' by longer life expectancy is some sort of evil ? What do you propose to do with those (us) old bastards ? Solent Green ? Dog food ?

Joe

As old or older than you mate, nature may well be in play with me
Yes and you knew before you asked every measure of world population, in your case de-population must be considered
We differ on rate of over all growth

Belly,

'De-population' ? Who has to go ? What has to happen in your authoritarian scenario ? ? Compulsory birth control ? 'Subtraction' of older people ?

This is moronic: over-population is not happening, birth rates are levelling off and the world is approaching 'peak child' and the number of children being born will soon level off and then decline. But people are living longer than ever. More food than ever is being produced. Technology of food production is improving around the world. There will never be 'over-population'.

Joe

http://www.9news.com.au/national/judy-nunn-khaki-town-novel-wwii-true-story-revealed-a-current-affair/c4806294-cef2-4aa1-9ffc-fce7e9dcec73
Loudmouth the link is for you
It tells us just how rottenly filthy racist this country once was
It reminds me how racist some still are
But it too is my rebuttal that any form of racism lives in me
I never ever thought of or suggested removal of a single person to reduce the population
Never thought or suggested any race of faith be targeted
In fact war is one way the high and mighty may do it
Or letting mass deaths take place such as Ebola not treated
In fact my thoughts are a fair honest way to control this worlds population, I will never understand your point of view
This world has parts currently over populated and soon it all will be

Belly,

Please read at least the first page of this:

http://ourworldindata.org/peak-child

In short, we are approaching 'peak child', when the number of world-wide births will level off - perhaps less than five years away, if not already. After that, since mortality levels (numbers of deaths) are also declining, more people will stay alive and so the population will keep rising. After all, babies will still be born, adding to population, even though their numbers won't rise. Can you understand that ?

Europe, Russia, Japan, South Korea, have all reached 'peak child', sometimes decades ago (Japan). China will reach it very soon, if not already. India and most South American countries will reach it in the next ten years. Without immigration, the US and Australia have pretty much reached it.

So where is there 'over-population' ? If you're thinking of some very undeveloped country, then obviously you have to ask whether or not their economy can be improved, by better technology, irrigation schemes, etc. - and in the longer term, better education and higher status for women, which will mean fewer births and smaller families. What can't you see in all that, which can counter 'over-population' ?

If you think that a country must provide all of its own food to avoid being called 'overpopulated', remember that many European countries, as well as Singapore, Hong Kong, many Middle Eastern countries, don't produce all their own food, but import it in exchange for their export of goods and services, and they seem to do okay.

Certainly, in many African countries, interminable civil wars hinder agricultural production, so one outcome of that - as in any wartime situation - is the loss of production and food shortages, even famine. But sooner or later, those wars will wind down and production on that vast continent can improve.

So where is there unavoidable 'over-population' ?

Cheers,

Joe

Read the link it said in relation to future growth [it is likely] not it is fact
It after all is one groups theory, you will be aware not every groups findings are taken on board by all
EG Climate change the man made part of it
Will the social reasons for less growth your side predicts include less developed countrys
How do you measure how many can live in those countrys
Yes do not underestimate me I understand what you are selling just not buying it

Belly,

i can't quite make sense of what you are trying to say. My 'side' ?! The fact IS, old fellow, that annual birth numbers have been declining rapidly since about 2000, mainly as developing countries expand their middle classes, particularly in relation to the position of, and opportunities for women. So there will never gain be runaway births on a world scale, if there ever was.

So the issue is the MAINTENANCE of population already existing, through longer lives: instead of dying at birth, or at thirty five from childbirth, or at fifty five from over-work or preventable disease, people can expect to live far longer. i.e. they're there, they exist and will continue to exist, while more babies (no more than before) keep being born. Put the two together and you get rising populations - UNTIL natural ageing catches up and people start dying at eighty instead of fifty - but sooner or later, must die.

So there will be a sort of Second Demographic Transition - where the situation changes from relatively high birth and death rates (say in 1950), to a situation of relatively high birth rates and declining death rates (between 2000 and the last five or ten years), to a situation of low birth rates and low death rates (from about now for the next forty or fifty years), to a situation of very low birth rates and increasing death rates (after about 2080).

A demographer could plot these processes and changes NOW, it isn't some bullsh!t 'projection': most of the people involved, you and me etc., already exist, and sooner or later, must cease to exist. While we exist, we add to the population, and when we regretfully cease to exist, you and me, the population will decline accordingly.

Let's be clear: there is no longer any runaway birth rates - on the world stage, birth numbers are levelling off as one country after another goes into negative population growth - since improving life expectancies has reached such limits as for it to be increased by medical advances only slowly. Sleep easy.

Joe

What should be made quite clear and understood -
it's not the number of people on the planet -
but the number of consumers and the scale
and nature of their consumption.

Foxy,

And both are increasing. We are nowhere near reaching the finite limits of almost any raw material, there is plenty of almost everything (i.e. minerals) still in the ground.

With developments in plant breeding and soil improvements going on all the time, and improvements in agricultural technology, we certainly haven't reached the limits of agricultural production.

I'm puzzled why there is this new hysteria about population - and its surrogates, i.e. not enough resources, not enough food, etc. The proportion of the world's population living in absolute poverty - while the world's population has doubled since 1950 - has halved since 1950. The proportion of the world's population which is middle-class has much more than doubled.

There is vastly more food being produced than in 1950. Hence so much of it is diverted from human consumption to animal consumption which, in turn, provides far more meat in world diets than ever before.

And if anything, one accompanying factor of the world's current stagnant economic growth is a relative saturation of that middle-class with consumer goods. I'm not saying one factor causes that stagnation but it accompanies it. Correlation is not necessarily causation.

Joe

Loud mouth I see your truth understand your thoughts but still hold mine
Reluctant to do this but will, birth rates in some living here are much higher than others
Bob Carr, good man branded racist for telling the truth is worth reading
Let us not forget my thread about this subject claims some parts are over populate now
And a truth in my view it is getting worse in those places
OK no level playing field corporate greed of multi nationals do help that take place
Wars filthy self serving dictators too
But never the less no matter the reason it remains my view some parts of the world are over populated'
Too if we do not set targets one day our numbers will be double today's

Belly,

Oy. Birth rates are really not the main cause of population growth any more, populations growing older and not dying as early as before, are. Certainly births in any number kick up a population, but on a world scale, we are nearly at the point when the annual number of births stays the same, even as the population still grows (or at least not so much of it dies off). Births are no longer the issue. There have to BE births of course, otherwise there would soon be nobody here but us old farts, but it's just not a problem.

Yes, parts of the world can seem overpopulated, Bangla Desh for example, especially those ghastly refugee camps for the poor bloody Rohingya - but that's not really a population issue, but an issue to do with political repression and Buddhist brutality in Burma and the need to flee into Bangla Desh.

But the most populated areas of, say, Africa, are usually the most productive - Burundi and Rwanda and Malawi, for example. That's why those areas are so popular. Otherwise Africa is barely half as populated as Europe.

Are you claiming that India or China are over-populated ?

Population density depends on a host of factors, especially the climate, soil, technology, skills of the people, degree of manufacturing industry, mix of agriculture and manufacturing and services etc. And meanwhile, technology, production techniques, types of crops, transport costs, etc., are always improving. And given the slow-down in birth numbers, there is probably no limit from now on in how much population the world can support in improving conditions, it depends on the mix of factors.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth we share the view about Bangladesh and probably about such victims of racism world wide
WE MUST fix that, soon please
But that to be achieved must see some forced used on RACISTS and their countrys
That woman leader turning her back on this is shameful
Yes age, dad died at 54, mum at 69, her parents and dads, all four lived in to their 73rd year
I am 74, still [true] feeling about 45, body however, and that male area known to bring problems, seems to be ready to put a used by date on me
My earnest hope, even if it brings dictatorship, is one world one people not China like but one respecting and caring for every one, yes even if it takes a dictatorship

Belly,

No. I'm an internationalist or universalist in terms of human rights, not a globalist in terms of national rights. There will always be sovereign nations, and the problems will be how the people in those countries - not anyone else - can overcome, and be helped tactfully by others to overcome - the problems they may face.

In the case of the Rohingya, certainly there should be a quota of refugees to be welcomed in Australia, but the main problems that caused their flight from Burma have to be primarily resolved by the people there, and/or in the region. Similarly, the problems of civil war and corruption in African countries are primarily, primarily, the problems of African people themselves. Of course, we can fund women's education there through such wonderful ventures such as St Jude's School in Tanzania:

http://www.schoolofstjude.org/about-us/overview.html

The prospect of a world government seems to me a recipe for world fascism. I will never support that grotesque notion.

Joe

The lies of Paris Accord
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Rtystv7dc&fbclid=IwAR3gMUgUu7kuA52KgfSsx4OuCG9c9yB1MQ9_XPaLiSeJeitNv8QbLEB6Tlc&app=desktop

FAILURE we humans have got it down to pat, ww1 was to be the last war ever
Millions died over what was nothing if not a war within the British Royal family and its colonization of Europes Royal familys
ww2? America sat out of that war long enough to become the richest country in the world by selling arms
We told our selves the UN would fix it, it too failed to even be worth its existence
Refugees, wars, pollution, we are failures, if one world government, even its pain, can fix those things it is all we deserve

Hey Belly,
Here's a quick 3 minute video which will give you the hard facts in regards to fertility rates.

Should We Be Worried About the Millennial Birth Rate
http://youtu.be/KUz_9x6k2Ng

Now google 'Australia fertility rates' and you'll find out the number is 1.81 (2016)

We're not even replacing ourselves (need 2.1) and a rate of 1.7 is considered the 'point of no return'.

Our population is growing at 1.5% annually, therefore over 2 thirds of that number is coming from immigrants.

Australia's population is 25 million, and I'm pretty sure we're accepting over 250,000 migrants per annum; might be 270,000 not exactly sure;

In any case 1.5% is 375,000 new people per year, so do the math.

In my mind the importation of Muslims and Africans falls into a category of 'breeders' to boost our birth rates, for the sake of the economy and repayment of debt, (which makes it a debt-trap) costs relating to aging baby boomers (no offense intended) and global governance / 2030 agendas.

AC can not use the same terms but agree that growth is behind a lot of our current problems and is worth looking at
Growth is not just used as a measure of success it is in fact a thing with a use by date, it can not go on forever
We will, as we must, reconsider if it is even sane to continue to think of it as worth while
Constant growth is just bringing its own end about once we see it is not the right way to live

Belloy,

Do you actually ever read other people's posts ? AC has tried to point out to you that, without immigration, our population may barely be growing at all, maybe 0.5 % p.a. ?

And that much of that is thanks to the youth of many immigrants who have their children, our children, here ? Without those children, our population may not be rising at all ? i.e., 0 % p.a. ?

And that without sufficient young people, i.e. under pension-age, doing the work, a huge burden is being put - and will increasingly be put - on younger people to provide the taxes in order to finance our pensions and other services like health care ?

Population is NOT a problem, certainly not for Australia. Get out of the fifties.

Joe

Hey Loudmouth,
Yes that was my point.

- Without immigration our population growth is less than replacement -

That means that immigration alone is the driver for growth.
Some predict Australian population of 38 million by 2050
http://www.afr.com/politics/federal/why-australia-needs-to-get-real-on-population-growth-20131130-ij9ym

This link looks better:
http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-s-population-projected-to-hit-42-million-by-2066-as-melbourne-overtakes-sydney-20181122-p50hjy.html

In the medium-growth model, Australia's population would hit 30 million in 2030-31, 35 million in 2043-44 and 40 million in 2058-59. By the year 2066, it would be 42 million. In the highest growth scenario, the population by 2066 would be as high as 50 million.
All of this is a created situation, created by immigration.

But I'm not sure these numbers should be believed.
"35 million in 2043-44 and 40 million in 2058-59"
They're predicting 15 years for 5 million people, 330,000 per annum total.
I think more like maybe 10 years?

Apparently the current immigration ceiling is 190,000 per year.
http://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/immigration-australia-s-migration-ceiling-to-remain-unchanged-in-2018-19_2

Google 'annual immigration rate australia'
"On 7 August 2018, the Australian Bureau of Statistics population clock reached 25 million, with 62% of the growth in the last ten years being a result of immigration."

Emphasis "62% of growth in the last 10 years being a result of immigration"

Now here's the catch.
If the Greta Thunbergs of the world have an argument that holds merit and the world is going to end in 12 years, why are we immigrating for growth?

[Cont.]
- Afterthought -
"They're predicting 15 years for 5 million people, 330,000 per annum total."

How do they expect us to believe it will take 15 years for that extra 5 million people from 2043 to 2058;
If its only going to take 12 or 13 years in their current predictions of 25 million in 2018 to 30 million in 2030/31?

They're effectively saying growth will slow down with more people.
That doesnt make sense.

Loudmouth ok are you sitting on a nail
Do you value only your own point of view YES I READ EVERY POST
Even the ageing right of reality stuff
I remain convinced parts of the world are already over populated
In fact while this is not that thread please follow
IF we already have over population is it not clear to you that is here too? right now?
So why are you saying we indeed must grow/remain the same?
Bush fire crisis in two states temperature up to 40 northern Queensland
Climate we agree is changing, do we understand? do we take note it may not/likely will not, return to what we think is normal
IF so how many not coastal Australians can this country have?

Belly,

Over-population ? Where ? Which parts of the world have reached the limits of the latest productive technology but are over-populated ?

Please don't say Singapore.

Joe

Loudmouth gee you have changed, your opinion
Yes you have one and so do I maybe the problem is you do not want me to have one
Africa, how many are living with comfort? or not living a as they could be if the climate had not changed
Is India ok with so many in its current population, and is it ok to continue growing, China?
What if this drought is part of our new [remember we said it is changing] climate
How many can live inland without water

http://medium.com/@ProfByron/how-i-changed-my-mind-about-global-warming-f603a8aca3da

A former Greenie Global warming alarmist scientist changes his mind.

Belly,

So now we're getting closer to your true prejudices: it's Africa, India and China whose populations have to be cut back ?

First, China's the rate of growth in birth numbers is declining rapidly, and will be zero in a few years. So populations will 'grow' only because of medical advances and better standard of living in that unfortunate totalitarian country. How do you propose to cut back the population of those older people ?

Second, India is approaching zero population growth in its birth numbers - 2.3 children per woman, compared to 2.1 children per woman for zero population growth. It still has high death rates, including of children, so effectively it may have already reached ZPG in terms of births. India's numbers will rise in the future mainly because of medical advances, as people live longer.

Africa: is this your real concern ? Too many black people ? How would you propose to slash their populations before they're - horrors ! - too numerous ? Disease ? Civil wars ? Starvation ? What's your weapon of choice ?

Am I accusing you of blatant racism ? Yes.

Joe

Loud mouth are you ok? hold your bitter biases and think
NO WAY I ever said some races should be the ones to reduce population
You once had a better view of the world than you have now
This thread was about climate, BUT it could have asked the impact of population growth on climate
It touched on both but never ever was it my intention [seems to be yours] that any one race or country should face reduction of population on its own
Parts of the world are over populated, in the short term some parts, right now, are under populated see the answer?
Long term a stable population must be an out come or we kill us all

God, here we go again.

Which parts of the world are over-populated ? Coincidentally, do those parts have very low levels of technology ? i.e. if their agricultural technology was up to world levels,k would they still be over-populated ?

And if manufacturing - half of India's work-force is in manufacturing and services - was up to world levels, would they be over-populated ? Can you see that there is no 'natural' level of population, it depends on many factors including productive technology - corruption, incompetence of leaders, cronyism, etc drag countries back. But they're not innate factors or forever. Hopefully.

But leave the stupidity to Misopinionated, with his 'the world reached sustainability limits on June 26, 1975, at 4.45 pm'.

Think about technology alone as making a huge difference: in the Middle Ages, an acre was defined as the area of land which man could plough with a bullock, in one day. Now think of today's technology: both you and I have probably ploughed paddocks with modern tractors, turning up hundreds of acres each day. And with each day's work, helping the eventual growth of hundreds of tonnes of grain, at around $ 120-150 per tone - i.e. eventually tens of thousands of dollars' worth of grain each day.

Of course, people using hoes, or ploughs being pulled by bullocks can't dig up or make as much as that each day. But if they had the most modern technology ? Would they be 'over-populated' ? Of course not. Try to think things through, Belly.

Joe

Best you give up reading my posts Loudmouth
Have always had a soft spot for you '
But never ever going to give up my thought over population is no pun intended a growing problem
A problem that will be up front world wide very soon and much talked about
In fact the next big big thing as big as climate change will be population and the fact is must not grow forever

Belly,

Try this exercise:

* You believe there is over-population. Take your time to write down your main reasons for thinking this. Imagine that you're trying to persuade someone, with all of your most persuasive reasons:

Reason 1:

Reason 2:

Reason 3:

Joe

Loudmouth you try this
What if any do you claim is the number in the future that will be enough humans on this planet
Is there any links to population and how many the planet can feed house carry
Can constant growth be a forever thing
IT REMAINS my view we know we can only run so many cattle in a paddock
We know some times that number can increase or decrease because of feed available
And like it or not parts of the world see paddocks needing a spell, re purpose

Belly,

There are two aspects to population growth:

* . births: the annual number of births around the world is levelling off, and will plateau for a generation or so from now, before declining;

* . deaths: when people don't die, they keep living, so they're counted as part of the population: the more that people live longer, the more of them are counted With medical advances, the number of deaths declines, life expectancy is longer, so the proportion of the population who are older people grows - at least until the oldest reach a sort of 'natural' limit, and then they (we, you and I) die.

We are about to enter a time when birth numbers don't increase, but life expectancy increases, so population increases. When that 'natural' limit of life expectancy is reached, maybe in two generations, then the overall population will decline.

So the world population will keep rising, at slowing rates, then it will level off and then slowly decline.

As for technology, and the capacity of the world to produce enough food by developing techniques to improve production increases, food production will easily keep up with population growth, while population grows. Once population levels off and then declines, the availability of food will become a quaint memory of history.

Joe

Loudmouth you have highlighted those points often, never needed to, I agree with them
I however do not even get close to seeing a world the population is not growing in
IF we could stop treating the need for true useful aid as an illness, give it freely
We would as a by product see much higher birth rates
We will never see, without war famine or dreadful illness, see population growth stall for good
In fact even my plea, for control, will not come without great effort
But it must come, will come
We can only hope its control is in good and trusted hands

Belly,

Please have a good look at this chart:

http://ourworldindata.org/grapher/historic-and-un-pop-projections-by-age

You can move the cursor up to 2100. If you do, notice that the number of births between now and the year 2100 barely increases. The number of people under 15 barely increases. The number of people under 25 increases in those eighty years by only 170 million.

But the number of people over 65 increases by more than three times. If there's a problem with population growth, it's us old fellas, you and me. Not babies. Not young people.

Don't worry about world food production, that's simply not a problem. Looking after old people like us will be the problem. Of course, people our age will be a lot healthier and more active in 2100, that's why they'll be living longer. So maybe we won't be that much of a problem.

Joe

You have a point Loudmouth and I have always seen it and agreed
We in the end can not agree
I think we however have got away from the view my thoughts are based on racism
Even my view one humanity one world is, after great pain, a better out come
BUT afraid it would not be tax free
IF it took place it would unfortunately be by force
We humans let rich self interested rule us, by our neglect to remain informed about politics
So sadly, we one day face great pain, even forgetting population, we face forced rule
Pain for sure even Chinese style rejecmentation in my view