Should conservative climate deniers be despised for the threat they pose...

[raildogg]

It would be just fine. Because once you reach a western style of living birth rates fall below replacement. See Western Europe, Japan and the US to a lesser extent for examples.

Less population and greater efficieny means less demand for fossil fuels and a dramatic drop in green house gases. Plus nobody has to live in the dark ages.

Dark ages based on your beliefs.

Anyway, how long will it take these countries to "Westernize?" 100 years? By then, what will the world's population be?

Currently, it is the opposite. I don't see China, India, Brazil and others becoming green by following the Western model. The West is supposedly becoming more green in one way but their per capita footprint will likely be higher than the developing world. Where is the green in that?

A family living in a mud house in Africa will not become any more greener by adopting a Western style of living. Of course, this is what is happening. The West, in many people's eyes, has a superior way of living and that is the current trend in the world.

Let's see what happens. I'm just talking so please don't take me too seriously.

 

[Paratus]

Until you reach such a level of parity, the problems still increase. While such countries are late to the starting gate, allowing them to finish the race on those terms does no good

Yes my proposal would mean short term effects would worsen. Some of that could be mitigated by prioritizing wind, solar, nuclear, (sorry moonbeam. ) and natural gas over coal and oil. Then as efficiency increases and population demand drops phasing out more polluting technologies.

World population was projected to peak this century so I don't see why this wouldn't be doable.

Note: I'm not saying this is going to fix GW just try to get us back k to equilibrium in the next 50-100 years.

 

[werepossum]

Glad you understand climate change is happening.:thumbsup:

However, I read what you wrote and it is the same method of arguing against climate change that many deniers use.

I'm not sure why you trolling as a denier means I have a problem understanding what you wrote. You were much cleared in the quote above.

Both sides agree that climate change is happening. One side believes this began around 1760. Oddly, they call the other side "climate deniers".

Werepossim

Plants are not producers of CO2. They consume it during photo synthesis. If you are referring to the fact that they can release CO2 when burned or decomposing, they would be considered CO2 neutral as the CO2 they release was already pulled from the air.

Fossil fuels on the other hand are releasing CO2 that hasn't been in circulation for millions of years.

We're also cutting and burning large swaths of forest across the planet which reduces the ability for plants to take up the excess CO2.

So with those inconsistencies in your statements can you try to explain to me again what your position is?

Thanks

Jesus wept. Google "primary producer".

Sorry - have someone Google "primary producer" on your behalf.

In bold.

If you imagine global CO2 production closely mimics consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, you are to be congratulated on your vivid imagination. Perhaps one day you can evolve to the point of imagining how plants survived for millions of years before we began consuming oil, coal, and natural gas.

If anyone is inclined to doubt that we are totally fucked as a society if not as a species, this thread should remove all doubt. I don't personally care what religion you people adopt, but you should at the very least learn the very basic underpinnings on the Earth's ecosystem. Christians understand Jesus was not a giant pink turtle; you should at the very least have a fifth grader's understanding of the carbon cycle before you lecture us on how we're destroying the Earth with it.

 

[Paratus]

Dark ages based on your beliefs.

Anyway, how long will it take these countries to "Westernize?" 100 years? By then, what will the world's population be?

Currently, it is the opposite. I don't see China, India, Brazil and others becoming green by following the Western model. The West is supposedly becoming more green in one way but their per capita footprint will likely be higher than the developing world. Where is the green in that?

A family living in a mud house in Africa will not become any more greener by adopting a Western style of living. Of course, this is what is happening. The West, in many people's eyes, has a superior way of living and that is the current trend in the world.

Let's see what happens. I'm just talking so please don't take me too seriously.

Just so we're clear, by westernized I mean access to similar or equivalent amounts of power, clean water, access to education and health care services. Not necessarily copying western political systems, religions, etc.

It's one thing to have the choice to be "green" and live in a mud hut but quite another to be forced too. People who don't have access to clean water, food and power don't care about protecting the environment. They'll burn down a forest for crop lands.

 

[Paratus]

Both sides agree that climate change is happening. One side believes this began around 1760. Oddly, they call the other side "climate deniers".


Jesus wept. Google "primary producer".

Sorry - have someone Google "primary producer" on your behalf.


If you imagine global CO2 production closely mimics consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas, you are to be congratulated on your vivid imagination. Perhaps one day you can evolve to the point of imagining how plants survived for millions of years before we began consuming oil, coal, and natural gas.

If anyone is inclined to doubt that we are totally fucked as a society if not as a species, this thread should remove all doubt. I don't personally care what religion you people adopt, but you should at the very least learn the very basic underpinnings on the Earth's ecosystem. Christians understand Jesus was not a giant pink turtle; you should at the very least have a fifth grader's understanding of the carbon cycle before you lecture us on how we're destroying the Earth with it.

Never heard that term before so thanks. The little histrionics not so much.

So simply what's your point? We aren't changing the environment, we can't change the environment, or it's unknowable if we are changing the environment?

Or you agree we are changing the environment but are just argumentative?

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by Parrotboy
Note: I'm not saying this is going to fix GW just try to get us back k to equilibrium in the next 50-100 years!!11!!1!
*sob, sob, sob*

Nice histrionics there.

 

[Jaskalas]

The Major problem with GW is... We had an a very liberal person (Al Gore) explain it to the people.

No, it's the data. You think it suits your purposes, it does not.

 

[Paratus]

Nice histrionics there.

 

[Paratus]

I agree climate change is happening and that some measure of it is caused by humans. It's actually more of a land use problem then a CO2/carbon problem.

So what do you mean by a land use problem? Less reflectivity? To much slash and burned forest? Cities creating heat islands?

I'm curious what you mean.

 

[monovillage]

So what do you mean by a land use problem? Less reflectivity? To much slash and burned forest? Cities creating heat islands?

I'm curious what you mean.

Here are a few articles and links to papers.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/?s=land+use