This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

Climate Change
Started by Top-Boy




245 posts in this topic
Coppercrutch
Banned

Posts: 1,389
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-29-2017, 08:18 PM -
#21
Many more people = more people in locations where they will become the victim of a natural disaster. 

Even if the number of natural disasters stays exactly the same - or even drops.

Surely nobody disagrees with this most basic logic ?

Wiggo
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-29-2017, 08:21 PM -
#22
Rofl
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

Posts: 30,618
Threads: 277
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 1,664
Status: Offline

08-29-2017, 08:24 PM -
#23
How did the population make its rain so bad in America this week?
2NoDealFish
Modphibian

Posts: 11,170
Threads: 80
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 633
Status: Away

08-29-2017, 08:25 PM -
#24
(08-29-2017, 08:18 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Many more people = more people in locations where they will become the victim of a natural disaster. 

Even if the number of natural disasters stays exactly the same - or even drops.

Surely nobody disagrees with this most basic logic ?

Wiggo

More people  = more bikes getting stolen. But, ultimately, who gives a fuck about that?

If people are stealing bikes because there's massive poverty surely the idea would be to combat poverty, rather than complain about population increase which is inevitable. You're congratulating yourself on saying something which isnt incorrect and lose sight of the fact that it's not germane.

Me - Hey, CC, what's 2+2?

You - Ice is cold

Me - But what's 2+2?

You - Ice is cold. That's a fact.

So, no, let's not talk about population increase. It's boring and it's unhelpful and it only serves to act as a distraction.
This post was last modified: 08-29-2017, 08:27 PM by 2NoDealFish.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-29-2017, 08:26 PM -
#25
The rain is fine VS. We're just getting in the way of it.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

Posts: 30,618
Threads: 277
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 1,664
Status: Offline

08-29-2017, 08:27 PM -
#26
(08-29-2017, 08:18 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Many more people = more people in locations where they will become the victim of a natural disaster. 

Even if the number of natural disasters stays exactly the same - or even drops.

Surely nobody disagrees with this most basic logic ?

Wiggo


We're not talking about natural disasters, funnily.
Coppercrutch
Banned

Posts: 1,389
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 06:35 AM -
#27
(08-29-2017, 08:24 PM)Conor-McStupid Wrote: How did the population make its rain so bad in America this week?

Did you read what I actually said ? I'll give you more time.



(08-29-2017, 08:25 PM)2Nafferty Wrote: More people  = more bikes getting stolen. But, ultimately, who gives a fuck about that?

If people are stealing bikes because there's massive poverty surely the idea would be to combat poverty, rather than complain about population increase which is inevitable. You're congratulating yourself on saying something which isnt incorrect and lose sight of the fact that it's not germane.

Me - Hey, CC, what's 2+2?

You - Ice is cold

Me - But what's 2+2?

You - Ice is cold. That's a fact.

So, no, let's not talk about population increase. It's boring and it's unhelpful and it only serves to act as a distraction.

Population increase is no doubt imo the World's largest issue. 

(08-29-2017, 08:27 PM)Conor-McStupid Wrote: We're not talking about natural disasters, funnily.

Really ? How's this ?
Coppercrutch
Banned

Posts: 1,389
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 06:39 AM -
#28
(08-29-2017, 08:26 PM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: The rain is fine VS. We're just getting in the way of it.

You're getting closer. Well done.

Sound

Let's think about what is being said on here. Apparently we could have double the people on the planet and that would be fine. It has nothing to do with or have no impact on MAN MADE climate change.

If it is humans that are causing these events or making it worse - what is doubling the number of humans on this planet going to do ?

My word it's painful pointing out such basic simple things on here sometimes.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

Posts: 30,618
Threads: 277
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 1,664
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 07:30 AM -
#29
(08-30-2017, 06:35 AM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Really ? How's this ?

Have you read the thread title?  Monty Umm
Dexter
You Wish You Were Us

Posts: 9,834
Threads: 2,572
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 07:43 AM -
#30
(08-30-2017, 06:35 AM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Did you read what I actually said ? I'll give you more time.




Population increase is no doubt imo the World's largest issue. 


Really ? How's this ?

You're monumentally fucking boring.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 08:34 AM -
#31
(08-30-2017, 06:39 AM)Coppercrutch Wrote: You're getting closer. Well done.

Sound

Let's think about what is being said on here. Apparently we could have double the people on the planet and that would be fine. It has nothing to do with or have no impact on MAN MADE climate change.

If it is humans that are causing these events or making it worse - what is doubling the number of humans on this planet going to do ?

My word it's painful pointing out such basic simple things on here sometimes.

Are you even reading your own posts? This is what you've said...

"So we could double the population and be fine? Mmm, riddle me this then, what would happen if we.... DOUBLED THE POPULATION??"

Actually the thickest comeback I've seen in a long time Rofl


We're not cows, CC. We're not causing climate change because 7billion of us are farting and if there were only 4billion of us we could fart all day long, but with 14 billion our farts will destroy the atmosphere. The impact on climate change isn't correlated to the population size. It's what we're doing as a population. Be it with 20billion bodies on the planet, or 1billion bodies on the planet, if we keep doing what we're doing we're going to fuck up the planet.
Coppercrutch
Banned

Posts: 1,389
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 10:26 AM -
#32
(08-30-2017, 07:30 AM)Conor-McStupid Wrote: Have you read the thread title?  Monty Umm

Yes - climate change ? And someone has brought up this US natural disaster in relation to it. 

(08-30-2017, 07:43 AM)Dexter Wrote: You're monumentally fucking boring.

Great. Ignore me.

(08-30-2017, 08:34 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: Are you even reading your own posts? This is what you've said...

"So we could double the population and be fine? Mmm, riddle me this then, what would happen if we.... DOUBLED THE POPULATION??"

Actually the thickest comeback I've seen in a long time Rofl


We're not cows, CC. We're not causing climate change because 7billion of us are farting and if there were only 4billion of us we could fart all day long, but with 14 billion our farts will destroy the atmosphere. The impact on climate change isn't correlated to the population size. It's what we're doing as a population. Be it with 20billion bodies on the planet, or 1billion bodies on the planet, if we keep doing what we're doing we're going to fuck up the planet.

Wow. 

So if human behaviour is to blame for something's we are seeing today - and this is still not 100% accepted by all but let's take it for arguments sake. 

You are saying that by having 20 times more humans this would have no correlation to the populations potential impact on climate change ? You're not being serious here - are you ? 

If it's what "we are doing as a population" as you state. Then how is having a larger population not going to impact that ?!

We all eat. We all travel about. We all use energy. 

Your logic is clearly we need to do that all cleaner and better and cause less potential damage to the planet ? I completely agree [Whether or not climate change is the end target we should be doing this anyway so we are in agreement either way]

So how much more difficult do you think this is going to be with 20 billion folk compared to 1 billion folk ? 

Come on man. I don't think you're that stupid - you surely see the link here ? 

Crowe
Missed98
Member

Posts: 155
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 10:44 AM -
#33
(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Population is the real problem. And the locations large amounts of the population like and have chosen to live in. 

Man made climate change may or may not be happening. It's not really the big problem here though. 

If the population of the Earth continues to explode more people are going to be exposed to extremes of weather and disasters - even if everything in terms of climate etc stayed exactly the same [Which it hasn't ever but that's another point].

It's simple numbers. There's too many of us. No easy solution of course. I'm sure nature will work something out. It always does eventually.

A top university you say and you come out with the nonsense above.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-...ediate.htm

Nicely done, obfuscating the argument to population explosion. It's really quite simple, if humans continue to breed AND continue to act the way we do, we're screwed. There's very little chance of humans deciding to stop breeding so our only other choice is to change our actions.
Haven't thought of a funny signature yet....

TheSitzpinkler
Elite

Posts: 12,601
Threads: 72
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 907
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 10:45 AM -
#34
You're both right.

If we could change all human behaviour population increase wont have a massive impact - but the chances of the entire population on earth being able to alter the way they live whilst dealing with the increase in population is unlikely.

So CC has a point.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 10:47 AM -
#35
(08-30-2017, 10:26 AM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Yes - climate change ? And someone has brought up this US natural disaster in relation to it. 


Great. Ignore me.


Wow. 

So if human behaviour is to blame for something's we are seeing today - and this is still not 100% accepted by all but let's take it for arguments sake. 

You are saying that by having 20 times more humans this would have no correlation to the populations potential impact on climate change ? You're not being serious here - are you ? 

If it's what "we are doing as a population" as you state. Then how is having a larger population not going to impact that ?!

We all eat. We all travel about. We all use energy. 

Your logic is clearly we need to do that all cleaner and better and cause less potential damage to the planet ? I completely agree [Whether or not climate change is the end target we should be doing this anyway so we are in agreement either way]

So how much more difficult do you think this is going to be with 20 billion folk compared to 1 billion folk ? 

Come on man. I don't think you're that stupid - you surely see the link here ? 

Crowe

I can see the link CC. Would take a monumental moron to not see your very basic and pretty uninteresting point. I'm not "not getting" it, I get it. It's just a shit point to make. Meaningless.

Also, that's not even your argument. You apparently agree that the planet can hold more people. You think the issue is where these people choose to live. You can't argue from all sides CC. What's the problem, over population or precarious settlements? I feel like your argument is very much "I never punched him, he hit my fist with his face".

More people won't make the problem worse, and less people isn't going to magically make it better. Nor is constantly running away from the bad weather as if it's not a problem at all.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 10:54 AM -
#36
(08-30-2017, 10:45 AM)TheLannistator Wrote: You're both right.

If we could change all human behaviour population increase wont have a massive impact - but the chances of the entire population on earth being able to alter the way they live whilst dealing with the increase in population is unlikely.

So CC has a point.

Again, you're not really seeing the point. We're not asking Pat and Bill at number 3 to switch from spray cans to roll ons to save the planet. Maybe try recycle your empty packets of sandwich meat, Flo. That'll save the world. It needs to come from the top level of government. It needs to be a nationwide effort that trickles down to your Gran and Grandas. It doesn't matter how big the population is below these governments, as long as they take the right steps. We need to alter the way politicians live, not Joe public. That'll just happen naturally.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

Posts: 30,618
Threads: 277
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 1,664
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 10:54 AM -
#37
(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote:
Man made climate change may or may not be happening.


Monty Chuckle Monty Chuckle Monty Chuckle Monty Chuckle Monty Chuckle
TheSitzpinkler
Elite

Posts: 12,601
Threads: 72
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 907
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 11:11 AM -
#38
(08-30-2017, 10:54 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: Again, you're not really seeing the point. We're not asking Pat and Bill at number 3 to switch from spray cans to roll ons to save the planet. Maybe try recycle your empty packets of sandwich meat, Flo. That'll save the world. It needs to come from the top level of government. It needs to be a nationwide effort that trickles down to your Gran and Grandas. It doesn't matter how big the population is below these governments, as long as they take the right steps. We need to alter the way politicians live, not Joe public. That'll just happen naturally.

It is a simplification to just say we need to alter the way politicians live.

The sort of radical agenda we need needs to come from all countries - emerging economies as well. The likes of China and India aren't going to impose anything radical because they do not have the infrastructure or desire to do so - they are catching up.

I don't disagree with the general point you are making - but the driver behind politicians making changes is the public who vote them in.

So, we do need Pat and Bill at number 3, we also need Mummy at number 10, and Donald at number 1600 and Mr no address in rural India.

Everybody needs to change and that isn't happening quickly enough to sustain us at the moment, let alone a major bump in the population size.
[Image: giphy.gif]
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,649
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 11:18 AM -
#39
(08-30-2017, 11:11 AM)TheLannistator Wrote: It is a simplification to just say we need to alter the way politicians live.

The sort of radical agenda we need needs to come from all countries - emerging economies as well. The likes of China and India aren't going to impose anything radical because they do not have the infrastructure or desire to do so - they are catching up.

I don't disagree with the general point you are making - but the driver behind politicians making changes is the public who vote them in.  

So, we do need Pat and Bill at number 3, we also need Mummy at number 10, and Donald at number 1600 and Mr no address in rural India.

Everybody needs to change and that isn't happening quickly enough to sustain us at the moment, let alone a major bump in the population size.

Of course it's a simplification. Non of us are meteorologists. It's no less simple than LESS PEOPLE or CHANGE LOCATION. Both which completely ignore the core of the issue. If we had 7 billion people a millennium ago, would we still have the same issues with the climate? Probably not, no. It's about infrastructure, it's about culture, it's about technology. We used the dirty tech to get us where we are now, and now we've got to use clean technology to us back to where we want to be. We don't need to murder all second born children, we don't need to uproot our families to somewhere less "climatey". We need to change the way we as a population lives, and to do that we need the backing of the governments.

Do you think as many people would be recycling today if the council didn't punt out those wee blue bins and refuse to pick up generalised waste? Of course we wouldn't. We'd still be filling black bags full of all our crap and sending it the landfill. Governments make changes. It happens from the top down. Awareness might be a grassroots movement but the change itself won't be.
Missed98
Member

Posts: 155
Threads: 3
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 3
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 11:21 AM -
#40
(08-30-2017, 11:11 AM)TheLannistator Wrote: It is a simplification to just say we need to alter the way politicians live.

The sort of radical agenda we need needs to come from all countries - emerging economies as well. The likes of China and India aren't going to impose anything radical because they do not have the infrastructure or desire to do so - they are catching up.

I don't disagree with the general point you are making - but the driver behind politicians making changes is the public who vote them in.  

So, we do need Pat and Bill at number 3, we also need Mummy at number 10, and Donald at number 1600 and Mr no address in rural India.

Everybody needs to change and that isn't happening quickly enough to sustain us at the moment, let alone a major bump in the population size.

Unfortunately, i agree with all of that.
Haven't thought of a funny signature yet....




Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)