World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


I'll be more interested in having the debate when we aren't deliberately cutting off our own ability to produce food far and above what we need to survive, as is happening now. It'll certainly be more reasonable when we stop polluting and destroying our water sources to actually include the Ocean as what was already a difficult source for desalinization and last resorts becomes too toxic to consider.

The strength of data to physical ability for the support of life is one thing. The artificial and negligent reduction of resources through pure mismanagement and arrogance is quite another. I think it's far more the latter which causes population to be the problem when it, alone, isn't.

In a direct point of example...The US has 300 million people. China has over 1.4 Billion people. 4x's the number. The land mass of the nations is almost the same. That gives some indication, in my opinion, of just how dense it CAN be and still well support itself ..if support is the goal and effort by all involved. Reckless indifference in Western culture seems more the norm than self-support with available options.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


Can anyone recall the 'NAVY MAP' that predicted area to be Flooded ????

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There is no doubt that we could be far more efficient as a species, but the system as it is setup, rewards inefficiency. Planned obsolescence exists for a reason, and the reason is that it rewards those who have managed to worm their way to the top of the institutions that run this insane asylum.

That being said, I am not so sure that continuing increases in world population is a good thing. Sure, with an efficient system, we could all be packed together like sardines with all the necessary subsistence for life, but I am not sure that could be called living.

It makes much more sense that we would stabilize population, or even allow it to decline for a period, to create better quality of life for all. What we have seen in 1st world nations is that this tends to happen naturally when a large stable middle class is allowed to develop. It seems that this situation does not sit well at all with the madmen who have managed to position themselves into places that allow them to leverage our economies into the current catastrophe.

When you look at history, there is a natural cycle that civilization tends to follow, and it looks like this is exactly what is happening. Those with an insane need for power have managed to gain control, once again, and we are headed for the massive crash that typically follows these developments.

Global warming is just one of the symptoms.

poet1b
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

We could put all 7 billion in Texas and give them all an acre of land and there still would be enough room in Texas for more. so land resources is not a problem.

Seriously!

And what about water?

What about all the space that would be needed for roads, markets, waste disposal?

Honestly, this is a really naive claim.

My friend it is just to show that claims of over population are not true.

Is it naive or are you just being naive?

Water you have plenty of rivers and deep wells all over the world to ship water from. Heck I made a atmospheric water generator and I produce 5 gallons a day with it in a humid area and 2 gallons in a dry climate. And you can run the unit on solar.

Why do we need to urbanize all the time. Urbanization has been the bane of our society, Agri and local industrial (home based textiles and metal smithing). the problem is we have allowed the govt to rule so long and take control of the Agriculture, water and minerals that we are no longer able to sustain ourselves economically unless we URBANIZE.

Urbanization is the controlling tool of over reaching Governments

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Today's Pillaging is done through urban economics.

Mass populations are kept in controlled in spaces called cities.

Control agriculture and product output so prices are kept higher in the name of economics

Get the population so far from ever knowing how to make and do things without govt.

100 years ago some people still made their own shoes and cloth for clothing. People still knew how to go out dig up metal to smith Iron ore, Copper, Silver, Gold, and so on. People made goods and traded with others for what they had need of. Farmers traded with smithers. they traded with other neighbors who grew cotton and flax to produced cloth and rope. Doctors traded service for food and items needed from the rest.

Today we are making a lot of this in industrialized complexes using synthetics made from petroleum.

The Hippy's had it right in the 60's community was what it was all about economics based on actual need not greed.

Today a generation of kids have been raised on devices and TV. Now they could never provide for themselves if left in the wild. That is why "reality shows" are a big hit because they are living in a dream illusion that all is well in URBANland.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


Dude, man is not an invading organism. You start your premise with a preconceived idea that is flawed at it source.

Man is the responsible party for the earth. Greed of a minority of wealthy control freaks is the problem of war and the current Urban control state ALL nations have converted too.

The invading and controlling nature is SIN and the lack of natural love and respect for one another.

ChesterJohn
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

Dude, man is not an invading organism. You start your premise with a preconceived idea that is flawed at it source.

Man is the responsible party for the earth. Greed of a minority of wealthy control freaks is the problem of war and the current Urban control state ALL nations have converted too.

The invading and controlling nature is SIN and the lack of natural love and respect for one another.

edit on 7-1-2014 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

I did actually state these are the words of James Lovelock, not me. Although I do understand what he means when he uses those words. Lovelock is probably most well known for his concept of GAIA, which 'proposes that organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.' [Wiki] When you take human interaction into consideration and the extent to which we disturb the balance of this system then yes, invading organism makes sense.

It's that disturbance I am making reference to (among other things). This is not something I came up with after listening to one person speak or reading one book, I've read many books on these topics and formulated my own opinion. I have thought long and hard about the issues and my debate is multi layered, so I am prepared to lay some of the basic concepts out for arguments sake and unfold my debate as the discussion opens up, that's how a debate works, otherwise it descends into meaningless contradiction and that doesn't do justice to any point of view.

I cannot take credit for this particular idea, having said that it is not the 'start', the 'source' or the 'premise' of my debate, so by all means raise a counterpoint but you need to read my posts and get a better understanding of where this fits into my argument rather than dismissing the debate in its entirety over misunderstood semantics.

You say 'man is the responsible part for the Earth', I could not disagree more. Scientifically speaking, there is no such imperative in nature, it is only human species-centrism that drives this idea. Theologically speaking, god is omnipotent and therefore has ultimate responsibility for everything, there is no statement in the bible that hands ultimate responsibility over to humans.

I do not understand what you mean by all nations have converted, that makes no sense to me.

I am an atheist, and therefore I reject the notion of theological 'sin' in favour of morality. The problem with the concept of sin is it is too easily reinterpreted to suit the needs of those who would subjugate others in the name of some deity (and I'm not just talking about Christianity here).

reply to post by ChesterJohn


global warming, global cooling, invasion by ebe's, holocaust, apocolypse, fukushima, does it really matter, this world won't just stop unfortunately, it will kill mankind slowly, as it has been poisoned by all of us whether we like that or not. we are all part of the problem on this planet, and now it's poisoned it's not functioning normally and it will dwindle slowly into its decline killing man slowly as it ceases to produce its vegetation, so really it doesnt matter which of the above grabs us any of them will give the same results for mankind.... time to get use to it and face up to what lies ahead for one of the upcoming generations of mankind and all thanks to us and our ancestors

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by HanoiLullaby

 

I'll be more interested in having the debate when we aren't deliberately cutting off our own ability to produce food far and above what we need to survive, as is happening now. It'll certainly be more reasonable when we stop polluting and destroying our water sources to actually include the Ocean as what was already a difficult source for desalinization and last resorts becomes too toxic to consider.

The strength of data to physical ability for the support of life is one thing. The artificial and negligent reduction of resources through pure mismanagement and arrogance is quite another. I think it's far more the latter which causes population to be the problem when it, alone, isn't.

In a direct point of example...The US has 300 million people. China has over 1.4 Billion people. 4x's the number. The land mass of the nations is almost the same. That gives some indication, in my opinion, of just how dense it CAN be and still well support itself ..if support is the goal and effort by all involved. Reckless indifference in Western culture seems more the norm than self-support with available options.

edit on 6-1-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

I couldn't agree with you more on your opening remarks. One of the central pillars of my debate is that human nature does not change.

Here is an interesting article about China and their growing problems (pun not intended).

onenesspublishing.com...

The practical upshot of this is if China is importing more food to feed its population and more and more arable farms are changing over to livestock to meet the demand for meat, then we have an increasing demand on diminishing production. Global demand goes up and so will prices, that's only going to end one way and it's not going to be pretty.

Any hope placed in humanity to change its behaviour is seriously misplaced. It's simply not going to happen, Christianity has tried for the last 2000 years in the West and failed miserably. Let's be honest about our human nature and get on with the debate that needs to happen.

The point that everyone is missing is that humans will never destroy the Earth, they will just make it uninhabitable for themselves. Either we find a way to manage our population or the Earth will do it for us. One way or the other, it's going to happen.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


GAIA, the Earth Goddess of Hinduism and New Age.

Well seeing you are an Atheist, I quoting any scriptures wont be of any use to you. So I wont, unless you want me too? But basically man was given dominance over the earth and the animals of the land and sea. So he is responsible for them and is to take care of them as well as the earth.

As a good steward of the Earth I believe in reprocessing goods instead of sending them to the dump. This is a step beyond recycling, i.e. I replaced the asbestos wiring on a 1940's waffle Iron with new wire and it works better than anything you can buy on the market today. another example I turned a sample case for aluminum and vinyl siding into a tie closet so my ties are stored with out being wrinkled or destroyed. I repair and resell equipments and furniture I have rescued from going to the dump. Reprocessing does more to lower so called carbon foot prints than recycling as recycling only touches 10% of materials sent to the landfill.

I created an atmospheric water generator from a dehumidifier that you can power with solar panels and a inverter. The biggest problem is the solar equipment is so expensive to buy in the US so often I buy direct from China for now as it is one tenth the cost. why because of the greedy (sinful) people who send all the junk to the landfill are telling us Global warming will drown the earth in 50 years because of rising sea levels because of Glacial melting at the poles and since the first time I heard that in 1990 it still hasn't risen even enough to cause anyone any alarm, are the ones making all the money off the Chinese solar panels they are shipping in and keeping the price so High and the technology is kept at a pace below so the cells wont last long and the equipment burns out to make it practical for anyone to use. Just look at Spain. Basically the minority rich are in control of the economics and artificially keep the prices up making less middle class and more lower class. Now enough of that until later.

Morality i.e. a system of moral duties that man should live by that make up his social ethics. While at one time these would have been labeled virtues or high standards of Character men would practice is an ethical way. That is not hurting others by their actions. those things that are not Moral are such practices as Adultery, Greed, Murder, Lying, Stealing, and bearing false witness. Something that is missing our our Society today. Today's morality seems to be based on social relativism that has made good ethical morals bad and bad ethical moral good.

Nations have converted to Urbanized Industrial compounds meant to control masses. While not all their citizens are in these centers most of their populations are and this makes it very convenient to commit mass homicide/genocide/euthanasia either by an attacking enemy or by their own leaders.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


Well, I think it's a question of what debate needs to happen. We can have a debate about population reduction and the only way that can happen quickly enough to matter to anyone alive today or the same time for the children born in the following generation or two. The reduction would have to come by force. Physical or legal, but either way, by force.

Now it's statistical fact, as I got to learn and test on with Geography, that birth rates in Western nations are flattening or dropping. It's both America and Europe, among others. Birth rates in other nations are increasing and at a rate to offset the rates in the Western world. So, net balance for Earth is a steady increase in population.

We're back to using force to reduce it, or finding ways to make use of the majority of our land mass not being used on Earth...Or we start looking for serious ways to expand off this one planet. Likely, it'll have to be a combination of the latter two with some spectacular failures for the first until it's abandoned. China has pushed hard with 1 child, although exceptions are plenty. China also has a police state with an iron fist to back it. Elsewhere, that policy would just get Government workers killed.

Population reduction there too, but hardly how we want it.

flipflop
reply to post by ChesterJohn

 

global warming, global cooling, invasion by ebe's, holocaust, apocolypse, fukushima, does it really matter, this world won't just stop unfortunately, it will kill mankind slowly, as it has been poisoned by all of us whether we like that or not. we are all part of the problem on this planet, and now it's poisoned it's not functioning normally and it will dwindle slowly into its decline killing man slowly as it ceases to produce its vegetation, so really it doesnt matter which of the above grabs us any of them will give the same results for mankind.... time to get use to it and face up to what lies ahead for one of the upcoming generations of mankind and all thanks to us and our ancestors

You do know that TREES are a RENEWABLE resource?

If you take Monasanto out of the way all grains and plants are self renewing. But rich greedy men who own these companies don't want you to have independence in helping yourself they want you fully dependent on them. So they GMO the seed stock so the plant wont renew itself and you have to buy seed from them (you cannot produce your own seed). And once you are of no use they will drop an epidemic or a bomb right on the Urban control centers you live in and call it a necessity to save the planet.

Do you know there is no less water on the earth today than there was 3000 years ago (less usable/potable but just as much). Water can be purified.

Did you know that our earth's system is a thermal dynamic system?

A man made a thermal dynamic model in a machine form that produces Ozone, Hydrogen peroxide, pure water and the unit causes the removal of harmful chemicals and heavy deposits, the runoff water from this machine is used to purify deep wells. You can buy it for your home today if you like. But it uses a large amount of electricity.

My point being the earth is this type of system and it can as long as it is running clean itself up and during the process the whole thing goes through cycles. We are just getting to understand these cycles and even if you think you got it all figured out the earth will pop you a new one and send all your previous data flying to the can.

Kali74

AndyMayhew
reply to post by jimmyx

 

I've just had my first ever frost-free December here in England.

I guess that's global cooling for you

Global Cooling is a hoax orchestrated by the NWO to herd us all into temperate zones so TPTB can use all our oil for their super duper blow smoke up our asses machines, that's the Right Wing Agenda.

A little less than the temperate zone, say +/- 15 degrees off the equator. But there is a large problem with this, there are no food sources or arable land that would support 7+ billion people. Actually, it would only support about 1/2 a billion and most would have to be located in equatorial Africa or northern South America. Now where have we heard that 500 million number before? Could it be the UN Agenda 21 report and the Georgia Guide Stones?

Regardless, if we experience massive swings in global climate, I believe we will have an ice age. Modern cities north of Florida will be buried, inundated with snow and ice, eventually glaciers. The costs of infrastructure maintenance and heating would become astronomical, consequently they would fail within a year or two. You wouldn't be able to grow food in the prairies or US heartland either. Why do you think George Bush bought 100,000 acres in Paraguay?

Since the conditions required to produce these cold snaps is pretty specific, eg. disruption of the polar vortex by atmospheric heating at the vortex edge, I would posit that we have the US government and HAARP to blame and they are giving us a taste of what's to come. It's actually an almost perfect population reduction plan since the present population is unsustainable in the tropics.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Regardless, if we experience massive swings in global climate, I believe we will have an ice age. Modern cities north of Florida will be buried, inundated with snow and ice, eventually glaciers. The costs of infrastructure maintenance and heating would become astronomical, consequently they would fail within a year or two. You wouldn't be able to grow food in the prairies or US heartland either. Why do you think George Bush bought 100,000 acres in Paraguay?

It's just a thought on this...but I have another suggestion for what that world would look like and it wouldn't include astronomical heating costs. Why say that? Well..I think we're already looking at how previous humans adapted and coped with this very thing happening for mass cooling and climate disruption.

Check into the complex and very wide ranging tunnel networks they've found and are continuing to find from antiquity beneath Europe, cross to the western edges of the Middle East and even South America in some places.

I think we're looking at how our species survived it once before, as archeologists collectively scratch their heads and guess at what all that may have been dug and maintained for.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Regardless, if we experience massive swings in global climate, I believe we will have an ice age. Modern cities north of Florida will be buried, inundated with snow and ice, eventually glaciers. The costs of infrastructure maintenance and heating would become astronomical, consequently they would fail within a year or two. You wouldn't be able to grow food in the prairies or US heartland either. Why do you think George Bush bought 100,000 acres in Paraguay?

It's just a thought on this...but I have another suggestion for what that world would look like and it wouldn't include astronomical heating costs. Why say that? Well..I think we're already looking at how previous humans adapted and coped with this very thing happening for mass cooling and climate disruption.

Check into the complex and very wide ranging tunnel networks they've found and are continuing to find from antiquity beneath Europe, cross to the western edges of the Middle East and even South America in some places.

I think we're looking at how our species survived it once before, as archeologists collectively scratch their heads and guess at what all that may have been dug and maintained for.

No need to worry about that guys seeing that it wont result in that even in the next few hundred years.

ChesterJohn

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Regardless, if we experience massive swings in global climate, I believe we will have an ice age. Modern cities north of Florida will be buried, inundated with snow and ice, eventually glaciers. The costs of infrastructure maintenance and heating would become astronomical, consequently they would fail within a year or two. You wouldn't be able to grow food in the prairies or US heartland either. Why do you think George Bush bought 100,000 acres in Paraguay?

It's just a thought on this...but I have another suggestion for what that world would look like and it wouldn't include astronomical heating costs. Why say that? Well..I think we're already looking at how previous humans adapted and coped with this very thing happening for mass cooling and climate disruption.

Check into the complex and very wide ranging tunnel networks they've found and are continuing to find from antiquity beneath Europe, cross to the western edges of the Middle East and even South America in some places.

I think we're looking at how our species survived it once before, as archeologists collectively scratch their heads and guess at what all that may have been dug and maintained for.

No need to worry about that guys seeing that it wont result in that even in the next few hundred years.

You do realize that we can go from temperate to ice age in less than three years, right? I wonder what those wooly mammoths were thinking when they were frozen, some standing upright? Hmm, this will go away in a couple of days and I'll see the grass again? Bush bought 100k acres in Paraguay, do you think he's planning on starting a cult and growing bananas? Or does he know what's coming?

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


Bush bought that land because it sits over the largest aquifer in the world. He knows what's coming alright and it isn't an ice age.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It is, like I've said all along, very unpalatable but the longer we vacillate and procrastinate as a species the tougher the choices get.

reply to post by HanoiLullaby


I will agree with you 1000%..and I meant the extra 0, too.

As much as I truly feel politics is guiding and may well be sidetracking critical research issues for what directly impacts our survival on this planet in the long term? The research itself is beyond question in value. Whatever pittance is being spent, needs multiplied many times over.

We can stop spending billions on school lunch dictates or the sexual habits of an insect in Africa while pumping money away from the silly to survival. *WHEN*..not if..but WHEN nature eventually turns hard to the hot or cold dial again ..and history shows this is absolutely not a question to debate for if ....then we better have more than last minute brain farts and "good ideas on paper" to work out how several billion people in the wrong climactic zones don't become short term casualties.

We have the luxury of time to do all that now ..but that could change with almost no notice, to find Nature has set an arbitrary deadline we should be ready for ..but at this point? Would be forming committees just to determine if a real issue existed at all..rather than dealing with it.

reply to post by ChesterJohn


I hear ya, I was just pointing out that it is about more than space.

I fully agree with you on urbanization. These days what we are looking at is suburban sprawl, which primarily benefits the bankers and the rest of the investment industry. And yes, the other side of the coin is for the banks to take over the rural areas of the country. This is a repeat of what happened to the Roman Republic, as the farmers were slowly moved from farming to full time warriors. The wealth nobles took over the countryside, and imported slave labor. Then Rome became an empire.

The ancient Europeans, that they don't teach us about in history were as advanced as the Romans, the difference being that they were not into Urbanization. Their large cities were only around 10,000 in population. Most people lived on farms, and a family needed about 20 acres to survive, along with a reasonable number of livestock.

There are far deeper, darker reasons for the dismantling of the factory towns throughout the US midwest. The PTB, the ICBs, have set it up so that slave labor on one side of the planet makes most of the goods, that are then sent to the other side of the planet to be sold. This is really messed up.

AS the ice retreats in the Arctic, the ICBs are gearing up to drill for more oil.