advertisement


So that's the climate f****d then

I subscribe to the precautionary principle on this. If the science is right, we need to take heed and act decisvely, right now. If the science is wrong, then that decisive action has no real downside apart from some additional costs. It's a no brainer.

Those costs are not insubstantial, granted but putting possibly unnecessary expenditure ahead of saving ecosystems and much of the planet as we know it, is just utterly insane.
 
Steve,

Here's the thing — climate change is a scam perpetrated by scientists working across many disciplines and continents. And they would have got away with it, too, had the fiendishly clever ruse not been exposed by a plucky band of billionaires, oil industry executives and that pesky dog.

Ruh-roh!

Joe
 
Indeed! Personally I'm convinced by the science anyway, I just have trouble understanding why people wouldn't apply the precautionary principle even if they weren't. The only answer I can come up with is the one you're talking about.
 
Steve,

If climate change were caused by excessive taxation on the rich, immigration, homosexuality, industry regulation, multiculturalism or atheism, the right, far right and alt-right would have been true believers decades ago.

Joe
 
tiGa5P0.jpg


Joe
 
Nobody talks about world population control: a taboo topic, I guess. I see my friends and relatives with their very young children and I worry about what the future may bring for them. The parents haven't a worry in the world about all of that, apparently.
 
Snoflo said:
Nobody talks about world population control: a taboo topic, I guess. I see my friends and relatives with their very young children and I worry about what the future may bring for them. The parents haven't a worry in the world about all of that, apparently.
Click to expand...
Well, it is the developed countries that are industrialised and many there do not have large families, so what poulations do you have in mind to be controlled?
 
Both. Persons consume more resources and energy per capita in developed countries than their counterparts in less developed nations. Overpopulated underdeveloped countries come with their own set of issues. I don't know, just thinking out loud.
 
What do we see as a sustainable population?

A utopian world could be under 1 Bn with all of us having a decent life.

That would still impinge on the other species substantially but allow some room for the other niches.

We were well below that when the fertile crescent was denuded and a bit more when we nearly eliminated bison.
 
I've wondered what it would take to convince people that climate change is real and that doing little or nothing about it now only makes any mitigation or adaptation in the future all the more difficult if not impossible. Then I came across this video of a starving polar bear. It's painful to watch.


Is the polar bear starving? Unquestionably.

Is climate change the reason why *this* bear is starving? Well, that's unknown. Perhaps the bear is sick or injured making hunting for seals -- its main food source -- impossible, so it's dying slowly from starvation. But one thing is certain, as Arctic sea ice melts all polar bears will have more difficulty hunting for seals, so the fate of this bear will be the fate of many bears.


This is what the road to extinction looks like.

If you don't like the maudlin music, click on mute.

Joe
 
Saw the footage of the starving polar bear on Facebook. It is really sad.

I am now thinking it might be a good idea for Trump to visit the UK. We could greet him with a massive demonstration. Being the ultimate narcissist, he would probably blame the British government for it, while holding May's hand.

It kind of feels like we are on the road to extinction, with climate change happening.

Jack
 
Jack,

It kind of feels like we are on the road to extinction, with climate change happening.
Click to expand...
A couple of bit of good news here and there, but on the whole it's bad news for biodiversity.

Climate change is but one cause of extinction, but its cause -- overconsumption -- is behind the other causes.

Joe
 
Jack,

The main causes of extinction? It depends on the species in question, but as a rule, the causes of extinction, from highest to lowest, are habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution, human over-population, and over-harvesting by hunting and fishing. (Conservation biologists came up with an acronym to make it easier to remember — HIPPO: Habitat loss, invasive species, pollution, human population, and over-harvesting.)

Climate change affects habitat (e.g., loss of sea ice in the north, which makes it harder for polar bears to hunt successfully), but warming can also change species distribution. As an area becomes warmer, cold-intolerant species can invade areas that used to be cold — i.e., move into the range of species that lives only in cold areas. The added competition from the invading species can drive the original species to extinction.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top