You too lass - forgive me for focussing on solutions rather than debating the root cause of the problem? 
Global Warming
- Thread starter Wayland
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Thing is Antonia, not all scientists would agree with you.
That's the important bit about theories; science only holds them true until subsequent evidences demonstrate them to be flawed.
At present one side says it's all our fault, while the other says there's an awful lot more than us going on.
My issue with the population control is why should it be we who limit our child numbers ?
Our society is thriving, why should those nations who are unable to raise their standards of living as they want continue to breed beyond their ability to support their offspring ?
We have been encouraged to have small families in the West, and now we have hysterical politicians telling us that the population demographics are so bad that we have to import immigrants to fill the spaces our own children ought to have had.
Sommat amiss somewhere.
I'm no racist, but I am pro our own families.
cheers,
Toddy.........who for the record has two sons and so far (I'm pretty sure) no grandchildren. In retrospect, I think I would have liked more children.
That's the important bit about theories; science only holds them true until subsequent evidences demonstrate them to be flawed.
At present one side says it's all our fault, while the other says there's an awful lot more than us going on.
My issue with the population control is why should it be we who limit our child numbers ?
Our society is thriving, why should those nations who are unable to raise their standards of living as they want continue to breed beyond their ability to support their offspring ?
We have been encouraged to have small families in the West, and now we have hysterical politicians telling us that the population demographics are so bad that we have to import immigrants to fill the spaces our own children ought to have had.
Sommat amiss somewhere.
I'm no racist, but I am pro our own families.
cheers,
Toddy.........who for the record has two sons and so far (I'm pretty sure) no grandchildren. In retrospect, I think I would have liked more children.
My biggst problem is in the arrogance of climatoligists' predictions.
We see time after time these apparently highly sophisticated computer models which 'prove' what will happen in 50 / 100 / 500 years - they are all total poo.
A computer model is only as good as it's programming - are we to believe there are people out there who have thought of every possible variable in a planetary eco-system? IF so they are deluded and arrogant to the extreme.
They are also missing out on a big earner - if they are capable of accuratly predicting the outcome of a system with millions of variables then it would be a virtual walk in the park to come up with a similar system that could accuratly predict the outcome of every single race at the Grand National - they'd all be millionaires!
Science's most accurate prediction in the 80's was that we had only 40 years of oil left - guess they got that wrong as well.
We see time after time these apparently highly sophisticated computer models which 'prove' what will happen in 50 / 100 / 500 years - they are all total poo.
A computer model is only as good as it's programming - are we to believe there are people out there who have thought of every possible variable in a planetary eco-system? IF so they are deluded and arrogant to the extreme.
They are also missing out on a big earner - if they are capable of accuratly predicting the outcome of a system with millions of variables then it would be a virtual walk in the park to come up with a similar system that could accuratly predict the outcome of every single race at the Grand National - they'd all be millionaires!
Science's most accurate prediction in the 80's was that we had only 40 years of oil left - guess they got that wrong as well.
It doesn't really matter whether it's our fault or not. Something bad is happening and if we don't do something about it then it will kill us, and probably most of the other creatures on the planet. It's called a "mass extinction" and it's happened before -- just not to us, yet.
You remind me of my wife. She said "Why shouldn't I be able to go walking in the park in Amsterdam in the middle of the night if I feel like it?" Then one night somebody tried to murder her. She's never really been the same since.
You mean like, er, us?
For pity's sake look at the graphs, and ask the obvious questions. Here's one of the graphs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_(lin-log_scale).png
There's no disagreement about what's shown there. You can't argue with it. The figures are real, agreed, undisputed, incontrovertible and downright scary.
Have any of the obvious questions made themselves uncomfortable yet?
No absolutely none.
Y'see, I don't believe that anything appalling is going to happen.
Humanity is the ultimate adaptable creature ( unless one considers the cockroach I suppose, but they haven't mastered binary as far as I'm aware)
The world moves along, it will do so whether we are here or not.
I'd rather we were here.
For every single theory put forward about our future there are differing ones.
That's reality.
Reality says that I live on an island that 'can' support it's population. We choose for it not to.
That's our choice, not an overwhelming determined limitation.
My response to the apparant desperate need for immigration is perfectly logical.
Pollution needs to be addressed. Environmental protection needs true determination.
Population control needs to be a world wide issue, not confined to our shores, because as fast as we decrease our population otherfolks just fill it up again.
Toddy
Y'see, I don't believe that anything appalling is going to happen.
Humanity is the ultimate adaptable creature ( unless one considers the cockroach I suppose, but they haven't mastered binary as far as I'm aware
)The world moves along, it will do so whether we are here or not.
I'd rather we were here.
For every single theory put forward about our future there are differing ones.
That's reality.
Reality says that I live on an island that 'can' support it's population. We choose for it not to.
That's our choice, not an overwhelming determined limitation.
My response to the apparant desperate need for immigration is perfectly logical.
Pollution needs to be addressed. Environmental protection needs true determination.
Population control needs to be a world wide issue, not confined to our shores, because as fast as we decrease our population otherfolks just fill it up again.
Toddy
I don't believe our Island can support a population of 60 to 70 million Toddy - not even if we all go vegetarian. Its still less than an acre each - to grow fuel, to grow food, to live on, to work on, to gather on, to have reservoirs and power stations and roads on. Can't be done.
Red
Red
If you represent the majority, then there's no hope for us other than perhaps some virulent plague which only kills 99% of us or maybe another global conflict. You really have got your head in the sand. The appalling thing, which you don't believe is going to happen, Is happening now.
No, we couldn't the vegetarian route, that just wouldn't be right to impose that kind of stricture on people.
Modern varieties and farming methods however, if augmented by the same kind of small scale domestic production as encouraged during wartime, a little frugalilty (less waste !) and the figures suggest that we could do it fine.
The major issue is cost. Right now it's cheaper to employ some wee farmer in Kenya to grow runner beans, pick them, send them to the packaging factory, wrap them up in plastic trays and clingfilm in neat wee portions, and send them all the way over here, than it is to give employment to folks here to grow them.
That's the imbalance that's stopping us doing it for ourselves.
British farmers are really excellent, but we live first world lifestyles supported by the labour of third world subsistence.
We need a grow your own promotion and an acceptance that we can't have every food, any day we choose, all year round.
cheers,
Mary
Modern varieties and farming methods however, if augmented by the same kind of small scale domestic production as encouraged during wartime, a little frugalilty (less waste !) and the figures suggest that we could do it fine.
The major issue is cost. Right now it's cheaper to employ some wee farmer in Kenya to grow runner beans, pick them, send them to the packaging factory, wrap them up in plastic trays and clingfilm in neat wee portions, and send them all the way over here, than it is to give employment to folks here to grow them.
That's the imbalance that's stopping us doing it for ourselves.
British farmers are really excellent, but we live first world lifestyles supported by the labour of third world subsistence.
We need a grow your own promotion
and an acceptance that we can't have every food, any day we choose, all year round.cheers,
Mary
Mind I said about theories ?...........well that's all we have
That ours diverge doesn't matter one whit, how we deal with it only affects ourselves.
Me? I live as 'green' as is possible within the life I have. I make strenous efforts to limit my 'carbon footprint', waste issues, conserve and care for the world around me.
What else would you suggest? kill one son ???
The Earth's going to be here long after we're gone, but that won't be anytime soon.
cheers,
M
Hmm still can't see it Mary. I am currently investigating short cycle coppice route to provide sustainable fuel. I can't make even that come out to less than 3 acre for a small cottage for heat and cooking.
If you have a source that tells me how to grow our own fuel on say, 1 acre for the two of us, sustainably (without importing fertiliser etc.) please can you forward it to me? Because no matter what options I investgate, I can't make 1 acre give enough fuel every year for us
Red
If you have a source that tells me how to grow our own fuel on say, 1 acre for the two of us, sustainably (without importing fertiliser etc.) please can you forward it to me? Because no matter what options I investgate, I can't make 1 acre give enough fuel every year for us
Red
Balderdash. The human population is not a theory. Its rate of growth is not a theory. It is not a theory that the planet cannot support an infinite population. It is not a theory that if the population growth does not stop, then the population will exceed the planet's capacity to support it. Some people say that it already has, and perhaps that is a theory. Whether it has or it hasn't or it is or isn't doesn't matter for the moment, because I'm not asking anyone to pronounce judgment on theories. I'm just asking them to look at the facts not at the theories, and use the thing they have between their ears for a minute.
It really shouldn't be very difficult.
Coppice willow fuel's not that productive, even if it is good practice. But if you persuade your neighbouring farmers to allow you to poop scoop after their cattle, and you add your own wastes too, and you confine that in an insulated fermenter. then it will produce an astonishing amount of gas that will easily provide heat for your home. If rural India with one cow can do it, so can we, even if we do have to insulate the vats.
Thing is, are we ready for a countryside littered with ordure digestors or would we rather have solar panels, windturbines, and windmills ?
Mors made comment at one of the Moots that the fuel he would need to cut in Canada to see him through the night was a huge great stack, but when he burnt Oak and Ash over here, it needed hardly any in comparison.
Might be worth overplanting native trees and using the thinnings over the years ? I swept the paths today and got three shovel loads of Birch seeds :rolleyes, now the Sycamores are coming down too, and the acorns are starting, the Beech nuts are about half way through dropping. Chestnuts not yet. They all grow, I routinely howk out literally hundreds of tree seedlings from my garden, year in year out.
Maybe accept that it'll take time but if the things will grow between slabs, through bogs and up freezing cold Scottish hillsides, why shouldn't they thrive in your Mercia ? I suspect they might be the better of having grazing animals underneath them once they're up a bit; like pigs. How about you feed the pigs a bit, let them root through your woodland and then you not only get fertilizer for the trees but an absence of pests, and organic bacon too
Or geese? though geese are inclined to leave squitty messes, and you get foxes after them too. Hey, target practice as well Sorry, long day
I know the answer isn't simplistic. Good on you for looking for one though Seriously, we are getting better and better at being energy efficient. We are also getting better at being capable of shifting energy from one form of production or another.
I suspect that in the long run it will be best to have a mixture of productions and adaptable sources.
Don't think I've been much help BR, but there's a heck of a lot of land out there not used, and we have a incredibly long coastline for a county our size.
cheers,
M
It's like a bad 1970's (what the hang was the hippy drug of choice??? LCD or somesuch) trip.
This is our world. We either accept that our technological advances cause change and do what we can to mitigate it, or do we give in and go back to the stone age ??
I'm an archaeologist, trust me, I've seen their bones, I don't want to live that way.
Look up Harris lines. Virtually every skeleton of the past has them. That and all the under five deaths.
That's the reality of living truly naturally.
cheers,
Toddy
We wouldn't probably use willow although it is well adapted here but rather ash - which is also incredibly well adapted and self seeds readily. I have laready installed 90n percent efficient solid fuel cooking and heating, but I sipmly can't see I can produce sufficient biomass on my acre (neither do any of the papers I have read).
We do aim for self sustaining status, but I don't think its achievable for more than 20 million max in the UK - and I've been working at it for decades now.
We do aim for self sustaining status, but I don't think its achievable for more than 20 million max in the UK - and I've been working at it for decades now.
I sometimes wonder about this self sufficiency ideal.
We all kind of long for it, but really, humans thrive on co-operation and on trade. I don't think it really works to do it all ourselves.
It's not the most efficient use of resources either.
The only way one small family could do it all for themselves would be to farm well. Our lives are too full and too busy to live that way anymore.
For instance, jam.
We need fruit, well we can grow that. Sugar, we could grow sugar beet, but it'd take days of work to turn that into sugar. Fuel, again we could grow that, cut it, stack it, burn it. In what ? We need a stove really, I can't make one from iron, I could manage a fire, a clay oven type affair, a stone built and clay line charcoal one too I suppose, but how long would that take ? Jars ? I can't make glass, though there is sand down at the river side.......and that's it at it's most simplistic, all just for a jar of jam.
On the other hand. If I grow the fruit and make the jam I can barter it with my friend for venison for Himself's dinner........or I could repair his goretex waterproof breeks ( I did this) and get paid five pigeons and a leek ('cause I'm vegetarian and he felt that was only fair, the leek was four feet high and made a pot of soup with some spuds).
No man is an island really. Family, friends, neighbours, it's just humanity, and we're better with human contact than without.
Knew there was a reason I like people
cheers,
M
We all kind of long for it, but really, humans thrive on co-operation and on trade. I don't think it really works to do it all ourselves.
It's not the most efficient use of resources either.
The only way one small family could do it all for themselves would be to farm well. Our lives are too full and too busy to live that way anymore.
For instance, jam.
We need fruit, well we can grow that. Sugar, we could grow sugar beet, but it'd take days of work to turn that into sugar. Fuel, again we could grow that, cut it, stack it, burn it. In what ? We need a stove really, I can't make one from iron, I could manage a fire, a clay oven type affair, a stone built and clay line charcoal one too I suppose, but how long would that take ? Jars ? I can't make glass, though there is sand down at the river side.......and that's it at it's most simplistic, all just for a jar of jam.
On the other hand. If I grow the fruit and make the jam I can barter it with my friend for venison for Himself's dinner........or I could repair his goretex waterproof breeks ( I did this) and get paid five pigeons and a leek ('cause I'm vegetarian and he felt that was only fair, the leek was four feet high and made a pot of soup with some spuds
).No man is an island really. Family, friends, neighbours, it's just humanity, and we're better with human contact than without.
Knew there was a reason I like people
cheers,
M
Or a masterpiece of 1982 cinematography with an equally absorbing soundtrack by Philip Glass. Koyaanisqatsi a Hopi Indian word for "crazy life, life in turmoil, life out of balance, life disintegrating, a state of life that calls for another way of living" More relevant today than ever before.
Only if one wants to live in an 'idyll' where the production of that very film would be impossible.
M
M
I'm going to be radical and say I don't know. And furthermore, neither does anyone else. There are lots of hypotheses - but the vast majority of these are built on complex computer modelling which doesn't have all the facts. Even more complex computer models are unable to predict weather patterns 4 days ahead with any accuracy As a result, many of these are completely contradictory.
What I do know is that in the 1970's, prevailing scientific opinion was that we were about to enter a significant cooling period - guess that was inaccurate too!
However, what really gets my goat are the knowingly false PR put out by some in the scientific community. Lets look at a few: The classic photo of polar bears on a melting ice-floe - actually taken in summer as part of the normal melt process. The allegation that polar bears are in terminal decline because of global warming, whereas the reverse is actually true. The allegation that the polar ice-cap is melting, despite the fact that it is getting bigger since it's low point in 2007. The UEA disaster re the emails, where the top climate scientists can clearly be seen giving inaccurate or flawed data to the Inter-governmental Panel on climate change, and attempting to get sceptics banned from publishing in scientific periodicals, or internally communicating that their data doesn't match up to their own theories, but not communicating this to the same commission. Similarly, the attempts to deliberately remove data from "scientific" analysis like the infamous hockey-stick graphs, whereby unwelcome data concerning the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent mini-ice-age were removed.. And I especially dislike the use of the phrase climate change deniers, in a blatant attempt to block off any dissent or questioning by ridicule.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know the truth. But this sort of deliberate distortion of the facts by what is now a multi-billion dollar industry makes me wary.
Furthermore - even assuming that there is significant man-made impact on the climate, and is driven by CO2 production, the actions suggested to address this are absurd without everyone coming on board. A simple fact high-lights this. China is building a new coal-fired power station every week. If the UK suddenly becomes CO2 neutral, within a year the increase in CO2 produced in China alone will create more CO2 than the UK has stopped producing.
Yet the one factor that is indisputable is the threat of population growth. And with that comes potential huge political turmoil, as more and more people fight for limited resources. And that is a significantly greater threat than global warming ever could be.
What I do know is that in the 1970's, prevailing scientific opinion was that we were about to enter a significant cooling period - guess that was inaccurate too!
However, what really gets my goat are the knowingly false PR put out by some in the scientific community. Lets look at a few: The classic photo of polar bears on a melting ice-floe - actually taken in summer as part of the normal melt process. The allegation that polar bears are in terminal decline because of global warming, whereas the reverse is actually true. The allegation that the polar ice-cap is melting, despite the fact that it is getting bigger since it's low point in 2007. The UEA disaster re the emails, where the top climate scientists can clearly be seen giving inaccurate or flawed data to the Inter-governmental Panel on climate change, and attempting to get sceptics banned from publishing in scientific periodicals, or internally communicating that their data doesn't match up to their own theories, but not communicating this to the same commission. Similarly, the attempts to deliberately remove data from "scientific" analysis like the infamous hockey-stick graphs, whereby unwelcome data concerning the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent mini-ice-age were removed.. And I especially dislike the use of the phrase climate change deniers, in a blatant attempt to block off any dissent or questioning by ridicule.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know the truth. But this sort of deliberate distortion of the facts by what is now a multi-billion dollar industry makes me wary.
Furthermore - even assuming that there is significant man-made impact on the climate, and is driven by CO2 production, the actions suggested to address this are absurd without everyone coming on board. A simple fact high-lights this. China is building a new coal-fired power station every week. If the UK suddenly becomes CO2 neutral, within a year the increase in CO2 produced in China alone will create more CO2 than the UK has stopped producing.
Yet the one factor that is indisputable is the threat of population growth. And with that comes potential huge political turmoil, as more and more people fight for limited resources. And that is a significantly greater threat than global warming ever could be.
Last edited:
