Planet-saving, global warming etc

[johnarcher]

35 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Quite possibly. I'll put it down to the period of sustained, and utterly insane, population growth. But that's too much of a political hot potato to do anything with other than resolutely ignore.

 

It does when what we hear far more of are what those campaigners are saying, and there's no reason to have more belief in their visions than those who pretend nothing's happening. Both lots generally have their preconceptions and just latch on to whatever fits them (to a greater or lesser degree) and ignore the parts that don't. "We're all going to die!" isn't any better than "Zero chance of anything negative happening at all."

Obviously population growth is a large part of it, but so also is the level of use of resources per capita.

 

I'm not sure why you say there is no more reason to have belief in one position than the other. Surely, whoever may be advocating something, one can wonder what is the basis of that view and what the evidence for it is. Then you can look past the speaker and see that one view is suppoerted by the vast majority of climate scientists, summed up in studies like the IPCC report, while the other view has, perhaps, less visible means of support.

After all we do that on other issues, or we'd end up saying that the view that the Earth is flat is as good as the globular outlook, or that young Earth creationism makes as much sense as evolution and geology.

[Fenman]

46 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Quite possibly. I'll put it down to the period of sustained, and utterly insane, population growth. But that's too much of a political hot potato to do anything with other than resolutely ignore.

 

It does when what we hear far more of are what those campaigners are saying, and there's no reason to have more belief in their visions than those who pretend nothing's happening. Both lots generally have their preconceptions and just latch on to whatever fits them (to a greater or lesser degree) and ignore the parts that don't. "We're all going to die!" isn't any better than "Zero chance of anything negative happening at all."

 

You're absolutely entitled to your own beliefs. You're also welcome to insist either that the modern world is completely awful, or that someone else's vision is completely awful. Or indeed both.

 

But it feels to me as if you might be mixing up two things here - beliefs of campaigners (from either side), and the hard science.

 

There isn't now one single reputable climate research centre - anywhere in the world - which disputes the fundamentals of climate change / climate emergency (use whichever term you find least offensive). Not one.

 

There are, of course, still campaigners arguing that climate change / emergency does not exist, that it's all Fake News. You're also welcome to believe them, if you choose. Entirely up to you. But "belief" and "facts" are two different things.

 

Paul

 

[Nick C]

The problem I have with the likes of "Extinction Rebellion" and suchlike is that they take it too far, and start insisting on totally impractical (if not impossible) ideas like going carbon neutral in 5 years. IMHO that's more likely to put people off doing anything at all - it's much better to propose things that are actually achievable - and there is plenty we can do without totally destroying our way of life.

[Reorte]

37 minutes ago, Fenman said:

You're absolutely entitled to your own beliefs. You're also welcome to insist either that the modern world is completely awful, or that someone else's vision is completely awful. Or indeed both.

 

But it feels to me as if you might be mixing up two things here - beliefs of campaigners (from either side), and the hard science.

 

There isn't now one single reputable climate research centre - anywhere in the world - which disputes the fundamentals of climate change / climate emergency (use whichever term you find least offensive). Not one.

 

There are, of course, still campaigners arguing that climate change / emergency does not exist, that it's all Fake News. You're also welcome to believe them, if you choose. Entirely up to you. But "belief" and "facts" are two different things.

 

I'm not mixing them up, I'm pointing out that the campaigners from either side are both being selective. And the campaigners are the ones that make the news the most. Your post reads like you're saying that I reject climate change, which isn't true (although I do reject the use of the word "emergency").

[Fenman]

1 minute ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm not mixing them up, I'm pointing out that the campaigners from either side are both being selective. And the campaigners are the ones that make the news the most. Your post reads like you're saying that I reject climate change, which isn't true (although I do reject the use of the word "emergency").

 

And, as I wrote, you're perfectly entitled to reject that word if you want to.

 

Paul

[Reorte]

47 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

Obviously population growth is a large part of it, but so also is the level of use of resources per capita.

 

I'm not sure why you say there is no more reason to have belief in one position than the other. Surely, whoever may be advocating something, one can wonder what is the basis of that view and what the evidence for it is. Then you can look past the speaker and see that one view is suppoerted by the vast majority of climate scientists, summed up in studies like the IPCC report, while the other view has, perhaps, less visible means of support.

After all we do that on other issues, or we'd end up saying that the view that the Earth is flat is as good as the globular outlook, or that young Earth creationism makes as much sense as evolution and geology.

 

I'm saying that the underlying mentality of either bunch of campaigners is pretty similar, even if one of them happens to align more with what the science says. Neither of them are taking a particularly hard look at the science when it doesn't say what they want it to say - that may result in one group ignoring it altogether and another ignoring some of it, but as I said "we're all going to die" really isn't any better than "everything's fine."

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

And, as I wrote, you're perfectly entitled to reject that word if you want to.

 Because climate change is fact, "emergency" is very much belief.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

9 minutes ago, Nick C said:

The problem I have with the likes of "Extinction Rebellion" and suchlike is that they take it too far, and start insisting on totally impractical (if not impossible) ideas like going carbon neutral in 5 years. IMHO that's more likely to put people off doing anything at all - it's much better to propose things that are actually achievable - and there is plenty we can do without totally destroying our way of life.

I am not unduly concerned about climate change, it has happened in the past, and we are currently in an 'ice age'. Warming is survivable for us as a species. (I am also old enough to remember when the reputable climate scientists were predicting an imminent return to large scale glaciation over the temperate lands - now that would be an emergency.)

 

What I find of real concern is the wanton squandering of scarce resources, combined with the resulting pollution and degradation of habitat. The problem is getting people to listen, and the reason for this is that the truth is deeply unpalatable. Stay at home, walk or cycle to work or anywhere else you want to go, grow your own fruit and veg, dress warmly in the winter rather than turn the heat on, etc.. Only those who's work is essential will be travelling in motorised transport, and this strictly for the purposes of getting that essential work done. (Your lifetime allowance of one unit of flight - distance tbd - will be a tradeable commodity which you can sell to the highest bidder.)

[Torper]

9 minutes ago, 34theletterbetweenB&D said:

What I find of real concern is the wanton squandering of scarce resources, combined with the resulting pollution and degradation of habitat. The problem is getting people to listen, and the reason for this is that the truth is deeply unpalatable...........

 

And of course it would require a complete rethink of the prevailing growth based model of economics, and i can't see that happening soon.

 

DT

[johnarcher]

52 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

I'm saying that the underlying mentality of either bunch of campaigners is pretty similar, even if one of them happens to align more with what the science says. Neither of them are taking a particularly hard look at the science when it doesn't say what they want it to say - that may result in one group ignoring it altogether and another ignoring some of it, but as I said "we're all going to die" really isn't any better than "everything's fine."

If one viewpoint aligns more with the science that seems a pretty crucial difference to me.

I haven't actually heard many saying "we're all going to die", that would be a bit beyond the evidence, but it's pretty clear that "there's a serious problem that we need to do something about pretty urgently" is a lot better than "everything's fine".

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

7 minutes ago, Torper said:

And of course it would require a complete rethink of the prevailing growth based model of economics, and i can't see that happening soon.

It simply cannot, because 'nobody' would vote for it, because they won't contemplate the unpalatable truth. This is the underlying flaw of mass franchise democracy, which has always worked on  the basis of 'vote yourself rich'. This has worked so well for so many in the developed world that there isn't an alternative viable policy platform available. 'Give up all your comforts and entertainments in order that most of your great grandchildren will survive'. Nah, no one really cares about such distant relatives that they haven't even met. I'm having a Boggs Super Vandal, come what may. Those future people can sort out whatever comes along.

 

Crash and burn it will be then. Project restore will be 'interesting'.

[Reorte]

7 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

If one viewpoint aligns more with the science that seems a pretty crucial difference to me.

I haven't actually heard many saying "we're all going to die", that would be a bit beyond the evidence, but it's pretty clear that "there's a serious problem that we need to do something about pretty urgently" is a lot better than "everything's fine".

 

Not necessarily. It's easy to dismiss the ones who are in complete conflict with it. The others though, they run the risk of provoking a "boy who cried wolf" response.

[lapford34102]

Hi,

I've kept away from this topic so far in deference to my blood pressure but was given a link to this courtesy of No 2 Daughter {Bsc (Hons) Oceanography and Meteorology}

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Cheers

Stu

[Classsix T]

I half heard a bit on the radio last week, it was Jeremy Whine so not paying a great deal of attention, but I think it was to do with the elimination of malaria.

Connected with posts up-thread referring to population bursts I personally came to the conclusion that if such a disease was eradicated it probably would result in an increase in population in the countries most affected by it. Which on the face of it is BAD. 

 

However, here's the thing, whether by medical, economic, or societal advancement factors, the birth/death rate figures will eventually balance in any situation within two generations I'd say. And the reason is two-fold and simple.

Desperately poor people have (or at least attempt to have) many children, for three, but we'll deal with the top two, reasons. Infant mortality (spares) and fear of lack of elderly parental care. Eliminate those reasons to have more children and I'm sure birth and death rates will reach equilibrium, globally. 

 

Discuss...

 

C6T. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Classsix T

[Ozexpatriate]

 

28 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

birth/death rate figures will eventually balance

Yes and no.

 

Yes, for the reasons you state. Fertility rates in the west / developed nations are down. Aging populations are preventing the population from shrinking much in the west, but absent other factors (like a catastrophic war) they will inevitably decline. Once the developing nations catch up to a similar standard of living, their growth rates too, will decline.

 

No, because I'm not sure that the net population growth rate (with a more 'standard' global quality of life) will necessarily be zero or negative. It's unpredictable. What is clear is that we will see massive population growth for the next few generations as the standard of medical care and consistent nutrition continues to increase in the developing world.

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Ozexpatriate

[johnarcher]

2 hours ago, Reorte said:

 

Not necessarily. It's easy to dismiss the ones who are in complete conflict with it. The others though, they run the risk of provoking a "boy who cried wolf" response.

If you mean the ones who are in complete conflict with the overwhelming scientific evidence it's not only easy to dismiss their views but sensible to do so.

The crying wolf effect comes when warnings are given but nothing happens, in this case there is abundant evidence that things are happening.

Though I wouldn't deny that over-dramatic warnings may have an effect as you say, it would be better if the media quoted actual scientists a bit more often rather than celebrities or politicians some times.

 

[Reorte]

19 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

 

No, because I'm not sure that the net population growth rate (with a more 'standard' global quality of life) will necessarily be zero or negative. It's unpredictable. What is clear is that we will see massive population growth for the next few generations as the standard of medical care and consistent nutrition continues to increase in the developing world.

 

Not as much though if improvements to education are brought in along with them, although if you've got a population boom at one point even a decline in brithrates to replacement still produces population growth as that previous boom reaches child-bearing age.

[Reorte]

2 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

The crying wolf effect comes when warnings are given but nothing happens, in this case there is abundant evidence that things are happening.

Though I wouldn't deny that over-dramatic warnings may have an effect as you say, it would be better if the media quoted actual scientists a bit more often rather than celebrities or politicians some times.

 

Exactly what I'm getting at. Unfortunately the media is notoriously bad at scientific reporting, even on non-controversial subjects.

[johnarcher]

2 minutes ago, Reorte said:

 

Exactly what I'm getting at. Unfortunately the media is notoriously bad at scientific reporting, even on non-controversial subjects.

That's true, look at all the over-hyped stuff about positives or negatives of certain foods, when the original researcher would probably be a lot more measured.

The other problem is it gives some who prefer not to see the problem a way out - the "why should I believe it because a 16 year-old girl says so" line, obscuring the fact that what matters is the work of thousands of scientists.

[Classsix T]

22 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

 

Yes and no.

 

Yes, for the reasons you state. Fertility rates in the west / developed nations are down. Aging populations are preventing the population from shrinking much in the west, but absent other factors (like a catastrophic war) they will inevitably decline. Once the developing nations catch up to a similar standard of living, their growth rates too, will decline.

 

No, because I'm not sure that the net population growth rate (with a more 'standard' global quality of life) will necessarily be zero or negative. It's unpredictable. What is clear is that we will see massive population growth for the next few generations as the standard of medical care and consistent nutrition continues to increase in the developing world.

 

But that literally goes against my theory, twice! 

I'm saying population growth has stalled in the West and were other regions to follow, it would too. No? 

Admittedly, it'd require delivery of a western lifestyle to everyone, but the logic against population explosion is sound..? 

C6T. 

[Ozexpatriate]

12 minutes ago, johnarcher said:

the "why should I believe it because a 16 year-old girl says so" line, obscuring the fact that what matters is the work of thousands of scientists

At a recent US Congressional hearing, the 16 year old in question recently said "don't listen to me, listen to the scientists".

[Ozexpatriate]

11 minutes ago, Classsix T said:

I'm saying population growth has stalled in the West and were other regions to follow, it would too. No? 

That is what I said in the "yes" part of the answer.

 

You do need to distinguish between fertility rates and population. Population increases through average longevity increases and migration. Western fertility rates have declined, but not necessarily total populations - this is also a part of my "no" answer.

[Classsix T]

2 hours ago, lapford34102 said:

Hi,

I've kept away from this topic so far in deference to my blood pressure but was given a link to this courtesy of No 2 Daughter {Bsc (Hons) Oceanography and Meteorology}

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Cheers

Stu

Stu,

This is a forum on a site most of us are familiar with. I'd like to think we're better behaved in Wheeltappers purely out of courtesy to the site owner for providing it in the first place. 

If climate change is a thing that raises your blood pressure specifically, well, you aren't alone. 

 

If No. 2 daughter has some less schoolyard data I'm sure we'd like to peruse. With  sources etc, natch.

 

C6T. 

[Classsix T]

3 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

That is what I said in the "yes" part of the answer.

 

You do need to distinguish between fertility rates and population. Population increases through average longevity increases and migration. Western fertility rates have declined, but not necessarily total populations - this is also a part of my "no" answer.

Sorry Pat, I'm not getting that. You've added migration into the mix. DOES NOT COMPUTE! 

Were we all cool where we lived, guess what?! 

 

(so tempted to mention the plumage of the Norwegian Blue.) C6T. 

[johnarcher]

27 minutes ago, Ozexpatriate said:

At a recent US Congressional hearing, the 16 year old in question recently said "don't listen to me, listen to the scientists".

She did, and people should. But that doesn't stop some using the approach I quoted as an excuse for ignoring them.