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
i8hibsh
Banned

Posts: 485
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 11:25 AM -
#41
Not read the entire thread so not sure if already mentioned but the biggest climate change the planet has ever seen (the ice age) and then of course the global warming of the planet to melt the ice was before man was even a glimmer in Mother Nature's eye.   Proof of course that climate change happens irrespective of mankind. However, we are clearly expediting the process of the next change though.  That been said it would still happen – just not as quick.
Coppercrutch
Banned

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

08-30-2017, 11:26 AM -
#42
(08-30-2017, 10:44 AM)Missed98 Wrote: 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.

Breeding and population growth are two different things. It's perfectly possible to have breeding and a steady population. 

(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.

Cheers. Someone gets it !!

(08-30-2017, 10:47 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: 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.

More people will make the problem worse. If this there is no doubt.

Think of the basics. 

We somehow manage to reduce the pollution, energy needs, food required etc.. for every person on the planet by 50%. At the same time the population doubles. What's the end result in terms of our impact ? Nothing. Zero. Literally nowt. 

Without dealing with our exploding population all of this chat re. climate change is pointing to the wrong issue imo. 

And where people choose or have no chose to live is intrinsically linked to population growth.

More people = less choice. 

(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.

No - it does matter how big the populations are. See my simple sums above for proof. 

(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.

Yep - humans are far too selfish really. We will sow our own demise. I've no doubt about that.
Missed98
Member

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

08-30-2017, 11:49 AM -
#43
So CC, your top university taught you how to answer a point with semantics, well done. You knew damn well what i meant by breeding.

Explain to me how we're going to control population increase then ?

Actually don't bother, it's irrelevant to the thread.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,648
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 11:51 AM -
#44
(08-30-2017, 11:26 AM)Coppercrutch Wrote: Breeding and population growth are two different things. It's perfectly possible to have breeding and a steady population. 


Cheers. Someone gets it !!


More people will make the problem worse. If this there is no doubt.

Think of the basics. 

We somehow manage to reduce the pollution, energy needs, food required etc.. for every person on the planet by 50%. At the same time the population doubles. What's the end result in terms of our impact ? Nothing. Zero. Literally nowt. 

Without dealing with our exploding population all of this chat re. climate change is pointing to the wrong issue imo. 

And where people choose or have no chose to live is intrinsically linked to population growth.

More people = less choice. 


No - it does matter how big the populations are. See my simple sums above for proof. 


Yep - humans are far too selfish really. We will sow our own demise. I've no doubt about that.

You have no idea what you're talking about with this one. Your simple maths Rofl multiplying "bad climate" by 2. I'd love to see you stick that in a calculator. You've no idea what you're even saying. You're just making a shit observation that more people = bad. You don't even know why its bad. You've just decided that it is. You're basically arguing if 2, 4 or 6 bullets to the face would make you deader.

Basically, cc, you've once again said absolutely fuck all but act as if you're dropping bombs.

Simple sums Rofl Rofl Rofl you're fucking simple all right.
This post was last modified: 08-30-2017, 11:52 AM by Roger H. Sterling.
i8hibsh
Banned

Posts: 485
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 11:57 AM -
#45
(08-30-2017, 11:49 AM)Missed98 Wrote: So CC, your top university taught you how to answer a point with semantics, well done. You knew damn well what i meant by breeding.  

Explain to me how we're going to control population increase then ?

Actually don't bother, it's irrelevant to the thread.

The pope could stop bullshitting that he speaks for God and that condoms are a sin for a start.
Missed98
Member

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

08-30-2017, 12:00 PM -
#46
Good news on this thread is CC now accepts man-made climate change.

We somehow manage to reduce the pollution, energy needs, food required etc.. for every person on the planet by 50%. At the same time the population doubles. What's the end result in terms of our impact ? Nothing. Zero. Literally nowt.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

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

08-30-2017, 12:05 PM -
#47
(08-30-2017, 11:57 AM)i8hibsh Wrote: The pope could stop bullshitting that he speaks for God and that condoms are a sin for a start.

[Image: JS44762550.jpg]
Missed98
Member

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

08-30-2017, 12:08 PM -
#48
(08-30-2017, 11:57 AM)i8hibsh Wrote: The pope could stop bullshitting that he speaks for God and that condoms are a sin for a start.

That'll work well in Asia......
Haven't thought of a funny signature yet....

i8hibsh
Banned

Posts: 485
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 12:12 PM -
#49
(08-30-2017, 12:08 PM)Missed98 Wrote: That'll work well in Asia......

Well works for 1.6 billion Caffflicks.  

With regards to China/India their governments simply must do more.

This government could do more too. Clamp down on free money for those cunts who have kids they can't afford.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

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

08-30-2017, 12:13 PM -
#50
(08-30-2017, 12:12 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: This government could do more too. Clamp down on free money for those cunts who have kids they can't afford.

Let's keep abhorrent political views off the climate change thread plz
i8hibsh
Banned

Posts: 485
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2017
Reputation:
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 12:17 PM -
#51
(08-30-2017, 12:13 PM)Conor-McStupid Wrote: Let's keep abhorrent political views off the climate change thread plz

It sums it up.  The world are having kids they can't afford.  Very factual comment.  In this country we give incentives for this. Another factual comment.

Abhorrent to you, but I get the feeling most things you don't agree wiht probably are.
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

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

08-30-2017, 12:21 PM -
#52
(08-30-2017, 12:17 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: It sums it up.  The world are having kids they can't afford.  Very factual comment.  In this country we give incentives for this. Another factual comment.

Abhorrent to you, but I get the feeling most things you don't agree wiht probably are.

Wiggo
2NoDealFish
Modphibian

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

08-30-2017, 12:34 PM -
#53
Very factual.

Always trust people who present binary options as a spectrum.

i8 is on the spectrum, amirite?
Coppercrutch
Banned

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

08-30-2017, 12:35 PM -
#54
(08-30-2017, 11:49 AM)Missed98 Wrote: So CC, your top university taught you how to answer a point with semantics, well done. You knew damn well what i meant by breeding.  

Explain to me how we're going to control population increase then ?

Actually don't bother, it's irrelevant to the thread.

We have more chance controlling the population of this planet than the climate long term. 

(08-30-2017, 11:51 AM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: You have no idea what you're talking about with this one. Your simple maths Rofl multiplying "bad climate" by 2. I'd love to see you stick that in a calculator. You've no idea what you're even saying. You're just making a shit observation that more people = bad. You don't even know why its bad. You've just decided that it is. You're basically arguing if 2, 4 or 6 bullets to the face would make you deader.

Basically, cc, you've once again said absolutely fuck all but act as if you're dropping bombs.

Simple sums Rofl Rofl Rofl you're fucking simple all right.

The sums are very simple. Any improvement and reduction in human energy, food etc requirements will be more than instantly wiped out by a World population currently estimated to be increasing at 80 million per annum. 

(08-30-2017, 12:00 PM)Missed98 Wrote: Good news on this thread is CC now accepts man-made climate change.

Nope. There is no way to completely verify the impact humans output of co2 etc is having on the planets climate. It's far too complex a system. Lots of scientists have come to the conclusion that based on observations it's more than likely. I would probably agree. 

Anyway my overall point is its not really the important thing here. The planets climate will change massively without our input. Like it's always done. 

We need to be less polluting and energy consuming for general reasons of common Sense. I totally agree with that point. 

(08-30-2017, 12:17 PM)i8hibsh Wrote: It sums it up.  The world are having kids they can't afford.  Very factual comment.  In this country we give incentives for this. Another factual comment.

Abhorrent to you, but I get the feeling most things you don't agree wiht probably are.

Someone else with a modicum of common sense. 

Sound
Top-Boy
Stupidhouse

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

08-30-2017, 12:45 PM -
#55
Easy read: 

CC doesn't believe that climate change is man made. He also agrees that it is more than likely, probably. 

Even though it's not man made, population increase will result in climate change.

His overall point - There is also natural climate change so man made climate change doesn't matter. We should however not pollute as much. Not because it harms the environment, just because 'common sense'

NB. He thinks i8 has a modicum of sense so the above should probably just be ignored.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,648
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 12:49 PM -
#56
(08-30-2017, 12:35 PM)Coppercrutch Wrote: We have more chance controlling the population of this planet than the climate long term. 


The sums are very simple. Any improvement and reduction in human energy, food etc requirements will be more than instantly wiped out by a World population currently estimated to be increasing at 80 million per annum. 


Nope. There is no way to completely verify the impact humans output of co2 etc is having on the planets climate. It's far too complex a system. Lots of scientists have come to the conclusion that based on observations it's more than likely. I would probably agree. 

Anyway my overall point is its not really the important thing here. The planets climate will change massively without our input. Like it's always done. 

We need to be less polluting and energy consuming for general reasons of common Sense. I totally agree with that point. 


Someone else with a modicum of common sense. 

Sound

Why, CC? Why? If it's not really proven we're doing any harm to the environment, why would it would be COMMON SENSE to reduce our pollution and energy outputs? WHY? A good answer please, preferably your own opinion.

Your "simple" sums are utter shite. They make no sense and prove nothing of note. It's not even a sum. Can't even get that right. You're yet again making no points at all whilst trying to tell others they're wrong. Dab hand at that by now. What do we benefit from reduction of pollution and energy if not a reduction in harm to the environment?

The amount of people isn't the problem with pollution, it's the processes that create the pollution that need changed. It's a very simple concept to get you head around, I can't see why a man who's been educated at a top top University would struggle with that.

Beggars belief.
Roger H. Sterling
Category 3 Poster

Posts: 17,648
Threads: 46
Joined: Dec 2014
Reputation: 1,003
Status: Online

08-30-2017, 12:52 PM -
#57
(08-30-2017, 12:45 PM)Conor-McStupid Wrote: Easy read: 

CC doesn't believe that climate change is man made. He also agrees that it is more than likely, probably. 

Even though it's not man made, population increase will result in climate change.

His overall point - There is also natural climate change so man made climate change doesn't matter. We should however not pollute as much. Not because it harms the environment, just because 'common sense'

NB. He thinks i8 has a modicum of sense so the above should probably just be ignored.

You missed the bit where he said climate change isn't the problem. It's our fault for being in the way of the climate. We should live in the desert or find a new Earth that hasn't been crippled by man.

He epitomises blame culture. Oh you were raped? Shouldn't have worn that. Oh you were robbed? Should've had tighter security. Oh your husband beat you? You shouldn't have got in the way of his fists. Oh you're poor? You should've worked harder to get a job. etc etc.

Typical Tory Trump apologist.
Missed98
Member

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

Wink  08-30-2017, 03:14 PM -
#58
(08-30-2017, 12:52 PM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: You missed the bit where he said climate change isn't the problem. It's our fault for being in the way of the climate. We should live in the desert or find a new Earth that hasn't been crippled by man.

He epitomises blame culture. Oh you were raped? Shouldn't have worn that. Oh you were robbed? Should've had tighter security. Oh your husband beat you? You shouldn't have got in the way of his fists. Oh you're poor? You should've worked harder to get a job. etc etc.

Typical Tory Trump apologist.

I do live in the desert, which actually makes my carbon footprint enormous.....

As for CC, well you're all over the place with your non-cohesive arguments as pointed out above.

If you really want to have an opinion on this, probably best if you understand it first.

Final point, Climate change is caused by those pesky benefit spongers....oh ma sides.
Haven't thought of a funny signature yet....

Alan Partridge
Drunk Cretin & Hassle Magnet

Posts: 32,740
Threads: 608
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 1,194
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 03:18 PM -
#59
It's interesting the way climate change is inevitably politicised and whichever side you oppose is blamed.

Cunts are going to look back on this in 200 years (if we are still around by then) and wiggo at our inaction and the blame game.
Johnny
Known slaver

Posts: 11,560
Threads: 16
Joined: May 2015
Reputation: 686
Status: Offline

08-30-2017, 03:19 PM -
#60
i8 you're onto a loser arguing with Stupid about bairns; the cunts got about 8  Heh

Missed98, where do you live? Quite Good
This post was last modified: 08-30-2017, 03:20 PM by Johnny.



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)