Climate Change

[vicsinad]

1. Can someone who does not believe in the fundamental doctrines of the faith really be a (insert name of religion here)? If no, then why the addition of "fundamentalist"? Is that just a disingenuous bad habit of trying to undermine people of that faith?

Yes. But, even if the answer is no, and one does agree with the fundamental doctrines of a religion (or any belief system), why are they so up-in-arms when the word fundamentalist is attached? At least it distinguishes them from those who only believe in some of the fundamental doctrines of their religion.

2. Why is it that you refuse to talk about evolution - you've made that clear in other posts? Are you afraid to go into the detail of your faith?

No, I'm not afraid. And I don't refuse to talk about evolution. I'll talk with people who accept evolution and those who don't. But if I know their reason for not accepting evolution is religion based, I get annoyed when supposedly rational and reasonable people think the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and refuse to accept what we know about genes and genetics, simply because it doesn't fit with what some doctrine tells them about how the world is or should be.

[vicsinad]

Climate change shouldn't been seen as this ice-melting polar bears dyeing scenario, it should be seen as a threat to the health of humanity and our planet.

Here, it seems like you're using the two interchangeably. But you're talking about how it should be perceived, rather than what it is.

Are you saying that climate change is real or not? Do you accept that humans are at least in part causing the climate to change? If you do, why does it sicken you that people still believe in it?

Or is your really gripe with which parts people are focusing on and getting hysterical about? Rising sea levels, melting ice caps and regional warmings? If that's the case, then I agree with you. There are more disastrous affects to changing our climate. But I still can't reconcile why people accepting climate change would sicken you if you believe climate change is happening? If your issue is that people are getting all riled up on the wrong course, then say it sickens you that people are focusing on sea levels rising and a warming earth rather than a polluted Earth.

But I am genuinely confused if you accept that humans are party causing climate change. So please don't take this as me trying to argue or discuss minor issues. I'm very interested in these issues.

[Philosopher]

Tell that to the deer in many parts of the US.

I'm afraid I cannot do that because deer do not understand English. But maybe you know deer language and you can report to them the sad news. And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell the deer in the US that we are not discussing overpopulation in relation to wild life. And lastly, perhaps you can tell the deer that you hunt, kill, and eat animals. So you are contributing to the problem.

Sure, the carrying capacity for the overall survival of our species is probably a lot higher than a lot of people believe. However, the carrying capacity for the survival of our species is not the real issue. It's the kind of life individuals will have to live if our population gets exceedingly high. Westerners (as I see it) are not going to easily give up their over-consumptive lifestyle, and others aren't going to easily give up their course to attain what Westerners have. Competition for resources (combined with their privatization) is causing a lot of problems, and will cause a lot more. And this is attributable to population levels. (I'm factoring in that part of being human today, at least culturally, is not understanding how to manage resources. I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future.)

You sound like an eco-terrorist and an animal rights activist.

Now, if you're arguing that humans will peak at maybe 9 billion, or 12 billion, and then go down not due to any grand causes (such as famine, war, cancer and pandemics), I don't buy it.

You do not have to buy it. I know from history that many of the world's experts have long predicted gloom and doom, worse than the end-times fundamentalists, on this planet from over population. I'm still waiting for these prophecies to come true.

[vicsinad]

I'm afraid I cannot do that because deer do not understand English. But maybe you know deer language and you can report to them the sad news. And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell the deer in the US that we are not discussing overpopulation in relation to wild life. And lastly, perhaps you can tell the deer that you hunt, kill, and eat animals. So you are contributing to the problem. .

We're discussing overpopulation with regards to life, and for that purpose, there is no difference between deer and humans. It's a numbers game, wild or not. You can't separate the two at your convenience and claim it means anything.

You sound like an eco-terrorist and an animal rights activist.

What is even the purpose of that statement? And if am neither, either or both, how is it relevant to the discussion?

You do not have to buy it. I know from history that many of the world's experts have long predicted gloom and doom, worse than the end-times fundamentalists, on this planet from over population. I'm still waiting for these prophecies to come true.

A lot of the world's "experts" said Jesus would be coming back every year for the past who knows how many years. I'm still waiting for those prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ to come true, too. But what does any number of experts being wrong or right have to do with whether overpopulation will/can be a problem and about carrying capacity issues? Are you disregarding the several historical human battles over local resources due to overpopulation? The doom and gloom is happening right now. I think James Madison summed it up nicely:

"What becomes of the surplus of human life? It is either, 1st. destroyed by infanticide, as among the Chinese and Lacedemonians; or 2d. it is stifled or starved, as among other nations whose population is commensurate to its food; or 3d. it is consumed by wars and endemic diseases; or 4th. it overflows, by emigration, to places where a surplus of food is attainable."

It's not a prophecy or prediction, it's an observation.

This has been ongoing (and if you open your eyes, it's happening many places around the world), it's a closed cycle, and eventually there will be no where for human surplus to go.

[Phoenix]

...Now, if you're arguing that humans will peak at maybe 9 billion, or 12 billion, and then go down not due to any grand causes (such as famine, war, cancer and pandemics), I don't buy it.

This is very hard to predict, already in many countries of the 'developed' world, population growth is slowing, many places are experiencing a balance between death rate and birth rate, some places are in absolute decline, where the deaths exceed the birth rate.

If these 'Western' trends are eventually seen in the developing world, it could be possible that Earths human population reaches its apogee, with an eventual decline.

[George S.]

Don't forget the muslim element wants to populate the earth and take over the earth from infidels.They have large families .They also support each other so they aren't going on the decline.

[vicsinad]

This is very hard to predict, already in many countries of the 'developed' world, population growth is slowing, many places are experiencing a balance between death rate and birth rate, some places are in absolute decline, where the deaths exceed the birth rate.

If these 'Western' trends are eventually seen in the developing world, it could be possible that Earths human population reaches its apogee, with an eventual decline.

I think if people believe we're not going to reach our carrying capacity level, however many billions that is, that is a little more understandable. Yet, I think that's different than saying that overpopulation (in general) is a myth. Maybe I wasn't clear on what aspect of overpopulation that Philosopher felt was a myth: that there is no foreseeable carrying capacity number for Earth, or that we'll never reach that number, or that local communities don't have carrying capacity numbers and haven't been reached. It was a very broad assertion.

Still, even though birth rates are slowing, death rates are also declining. Even at our current global fertility rate of 2.5 children per woman, in 150 years our population would reach nearly 30 billion people. Essentially all of Africa and much of the Middle East and Southwest Asia have birth rates that far exceed the 2.5, and those areas are where much of the strain is currently felt, and add onto that many developed countries are pouring money into them to extract African resources for their own use. What will happen to these people? They'll either die pretty bad deaths, or emigrate to developed countries, and put strain on their resources.

And it's more then numbers. You have to combine the numbers with lifestyles and how we utilize and manage resources in order to get a feel for the negative consequences of that many people. Will humans learn how to be less consumptive and wasteful so that such "doom and gloom" doesn't occur? I don't know. Westerners are living longer and using more stuff, and there are a couple of billion people in the world striving to have that kind of life.

Very few communities or nations know how to live with just the resources within their borders. This is a problem that is causing, and will cause more, drastic consequences for the Earth and its people at our current population levels. To add many billions more, if that is the trend, will only further exacerbate the issue. I don't see humans changing culturally, and I don't see technology helping, in order to prevent much of the doom and gloom, some of which is going on right now. We're generally selfish and short-sighted, and that must be factored into population levels and its impact on resources and our interaction with each other.

[Nikolaj]

What do you mean by "support" itself? That it will continue to exist, or that it will continue to exist as we know it? That it will continue to exist to support the same kinds of life that exist now, or that it will exist with some forms and types of life? Yes, it has a lot to do with evolution because our climate is, in part, influenced by the life and ecosystems on Earth. When, and to what extent, those species evolve and those ecosystems change, that will affect the world and the climate. So yes, it does have to do with evolution.

Through our pollutive habits, the world won't overturn on itself. You’re talking about evolution and the status of the earth to be able to supply the conditions to form bacteria, chemical compounds etc… Your contextual use of the word stable is different to what I was using it for, hence why you’re confused, even after I established we were talking about different things.

I had no idea what you meant when you said 98% of the world's pollution is natural occurring. By the definition I know, all pollution is human-made, so when you say that 98% of pollution is natural, I'm confused as to the point you're trying to make. Are you talking about CO2, methane, etc.? Which chemical compounds, and do you have a source for that statement? I just don't know what you're exactly talking about.

I am speaking about pollution that contributes to global warming. I am referring to what the first post in this thread was about, it’s not about climate change in general like it states in the title, I can see why you are still mislead. But seeing as you continue to ask me to explain myself, even after we’ve established the misunderstanding…

Natural water vapour, natural carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbon emissions all contribute to the natural green house effect the earth creates itself - humanity causes the other 2%. This is what i’ve learnt from engineering geology and environmental engineering units from University of Sydney, I assume everything they teach us is peer reviewed, unless you’d like to deny the integrity of one of the best universities in Australia. If you don’t believe them, go do the research yourself, i’m not going to continue this discussion because like stated earlier, we were speaking about different things and I have no interest in pursuing this specific topic.

And p.s., the first post of this thread was about "climate change" like the title of this thread. Your first post was about global warming, and I'm still confused if you're using the two interchangeably.

No. Read the above bolded part above, this thread is about climate change from global warming hence the links in the original post, not climate change in general like the title states.

You are the reason why I am interchanging, I was explaining to you what I meant in my initial post. Unless you wanted me to respond to you with "we were talking about different things” with no further explanation - believe me, i'd prefer that explanation

I do agree with that. I'm just trying to figure out which land should be protected and why. For example, there are many who argue we should stop deforestation because it leads to desertification which leads to change in, at least, local climates (and a lot of local climate changes aggregated together does mean global climate changes). That's fact. So, when someone says we should protect natural places because they're beautiful (which is perception) but not necessarily because deforestation will lead to desertification which will change the climate and our ability to grow food on the scale we currently do (and when they don't see how this is directly related to human well being), it makes me question their original statement about "it sickens me that people actually believe in global warming" and how much they actually know about the issue.

You are actually going all around the place now. I don't know how global warming correlates with what you are asking me or how it contradicts any of my notions.

I could list you hundreds of reasons to stop deforestation. You could also find hundreds of opinions on which ones we should deforest and which ones we shouldn't but if you want my opinion, i’m undecided. If you want a scientific explanation go ask a professor about the pros/cons and their opinion.

I want to assume you're only saying that the "globe is warming" is a myth, or that "if the globe is warming, it's not human made". But from your response, I can't help but assume you're saying that it sickens you that people actually believe that humans are causing the climate to change. And that statement would be based on a lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of natural systems. If you're not suggesting that, then okay.

Global warming is true, is a result of humans tipping off the already naturally self-polluting of the earth. When I say pollute, I am speaking in terms of global warming based pollution, e.g. things that cause the destruction of the ozone layer. Plastic in sea's are not going to cause the destruction of the ozone layer, but we both agreed we were talking about different things and i’ve already emphasised this earlier in my post.

I was saying that the increase of carbon tax’s and solar energy isn’t inversely proportional to the growth of antarctica in the past 3 years. This supports the idea that the melting and freezing of ice is a natural cycle the earth goes through and not a result of human activity. This cycle has also been recorded from scientists for over two centuries apparently, but that's what my professor told us.

This overall explains my emphasis that we shouldn’t see global warming as this dooms day scenario where we’re all under water. We should see this more of a threat to the health of humanity, e.g. the susceptibility of skin cancer from ozone destruction etc…

I am not saying we should stop funding solar energy, stop advancing our energy technology and so on.

[Nikolaj]

Here, it seems like you're using the two interchangeably. But you're talking about how it should be perceived, rather than what it is.

Are you saying that climate change is real or not? Do you accept that humans are at least in part causing the climate to change? If you do, why does it sicken you that people still believe in it?

Or is your really gripe with which parts people are focusing on and getting hysterical about? Rising sea levels, melting ice caps and regional warmings? If that's the case, then I agree with you. There are more disastrous affects to changing our climate. But I still can't reconcile why people accepting climate change would sicken you if you believe climate change is happening? If your issue is that people are getting all riled up on the wrong course, then say it sickens you that people are focusing on sea levels rising and a warming earth rather than a polluted Earth.

But I am genuinely confused if you accept that humans are party causing climate change. So please don't take this as me trying to argue or discuss minor issues. I'm very interested in these issues.

My previous post I wrote just now above should answer your questions.

[vicsinad]

Nikolaj:

Thanks for explaining yourself further.

I asked for a source about the emission numbers because, as I'm sure you're aware, all professors and experts state different things. The US Environmental Protection Agency, for example, claims that 60% of methane emissions come from human activities:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

Furthermore, even though human sources of CO2 emission are much smaller than natural sources, there are no natural processes that absorb that extra CO2. That is why, the studies say, that for the past 500,000 years CO2 in the atmosphere ranged from 180-200 ppm, but in the last two centuries its risen to just about 400ppm.

Thus, I hope you can understand my confusion when you said that 98% of pollution is natural and 2% is human made and trying to state that it means something significant. I like to see the numbers and studies because as someone whose field is environmental law, policy and science, it really does matter to me and what I do.

[vicsinad]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/04/130401-global-warming-antarctica-sea-ice-science-environment/

Theory for Why Antarctic Sea Ice Is Growing

Melting ice shelves shield the surface from warm water, new study suggests.


By Christine Dell'Amore
National Geographic News
Published March 29, 2013

As air and sea temperatures rise, Arctic sea ice is rapidly and uniformly dwindling. In 2012, Arctic sea ice declined so much that the loss "utterly" obliterated the previous record, set in 2007, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.

As of 2012, the area of Arctic sea ice around the North Pole had shrunk to 1.58 million square miles (4.1 million square kilometers)—the smallest measurement since 1979, when satellite observations began.

But in Antarctica, where sea ice is more scattered and driven by wind and waves, there's another story—ice is increasing in places.

In September of last year, satellite data indicated that Antarctica was surrounded by the greatest area of sea ice ever recorded in the region: 7.51 million square miles (19.44 million square kilometers), according to the center. (Related: "Antarctic Sea Ice Hits Record ... High?")

Previous studies pointed to snow: Global warming has warmed Antarctic air, and warmer air holds more moisture, which in turn creates more precipitation. That means more snow is falling on Antarctica, and more of the white stuff makes the top layers of the ocean less salty and thus less dense. These layers became more stable, preventing warm currents in the deep ocean from rising and melting sea ice.

Now, a new study has pinpointed another culprit: melting ice shelves. As ice shelves that ring the southernmost continent disintegrate in warming temperatures, the fresh water that flows from them accumulates in a cool

and fresh surface layer on top of the ocean. This cool layer then shields the surface ocean from the warmer, deeper waters that are melting the ice shelves.

The study "shows that global warming can cause regional cooling, and that's quite counterintuitive," said study leader Richard Bintanja, of the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. (See a map of the impact of global warming worldwide.)

"Most people think if you warm the whole system, it will warm everywhere," he said.

Also counterintuitively, a colder Antarctica may contribute to a rise in sea levels. Colder temperatures mean less snow on the ice sheets, which makes more water stay in the ocean, he pointed out.

Overall, loss of polar ice has contributed about 11.1 millimeters (0.03 feet) to global sea levels since 1992, research shows. Sea levels are rising at a rate of 3.2 millimeters a year. (See pictures of sea level rise.)

Ice Shelves to Blame?

In researching the Antarctic conundrum, Bintanja and colleagues noted routine observations showing that the deepest parts of the ocean off Antarctica are warming.

The team also found research showing that some ice shelves in Antarctica extend up to 0.62 mile (one kilometer) deep into the ocean. The deep warm water can easily come into contact with a shelf and melt it from below.

These observations led the scientists to suggest that the resulting meltwater rises to the surface-fresh water is lighter than saltwater-and forms a cold shallow layer that prevents the warm water from below to mix upward, thus cooling the surface layer and allowing more sea ice to form. (Test your ocean IQ.)

A climate model behaved in the same way, reinforcing the theory, said Bintanja, whose study appears March 31 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

What's more, the team said their new theory can account for most of the sea ice expansion. For instance, a statistical model suggested that other factors, such as precipitation and winds, are responsible for only about 25 percent of sea ice growth.

"A Complicated Place"

Walt Meier, of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, said the new study is "pretty interesting—it's something that I haven't seen before."

But he's more cautious about the study's claim that melting ice shelves account for the overall trend, he said. (Read "The Big Thaw" in National Geographic magazine.)

Sea ice can be found far from the edges of the continent, especially in winter when the ice is at its maximum cover, he noted.

"When ice is way far from the coast, the shelf water seems unlikely to have a major effect" on making more sea ice, he said—rather, melting ice shelves may give sea ice formation "a head start."

Noted study leader Bintanja: "We tested this with our climate model, and the effect of meltwater does extend all the way to the sea ice front."

Overall, Meier said, all of the dynamics in Antarctica—from wind to temperature to weather—makes it difficult to ferret out the facts.

"It's a complicated place."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/06/06/climate-change-is-getting-worse-so-why-is-antarcticas-ice-sheet-expanding/

Climate change is getting worse. So why is Antarctica’s sea ice expanding?

This year could well see a new record set for the extent of Antarctic sea ice – hot on the heels of last year’s record, which in turn is part of a puzzling 33-year trend in increasing sea ice around Antarctica. Unsurprisingly, these records have provided fodder for those wishing to cast doubt or resist action on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself states that while hypotheses exist for Antarctic sea ice trends, they are “incomplete and competing” (see page 909 here).

But far from waving the white flag, or falling on their ice corers, Antarctic sea ice researchers are relishing this grand puzzle of the Southern Ocean. In terms of natural experiments, they don’t come much bigger or more exciting than those unfolding across the Antarctic climate system right now. What’s more, the science is beginning to yield answers.


It’s currently autumn in the Southern Hemisphere — which means that Antarctic sea ice is once again marching north, responding to the cold, dark polar winter. It’s one of Earth’s greatest seasonal changes. Sea ice is the ephemeral lovechild born from an ocean coupled with a cold atmosphere. It is very sensitive to the complex interplay of thermodynamic (freezing and melting) and mechanical (compacting, ridging, rafting, breaking) processes driven by both parents.

As such, sea ice is a canary in the coal mine for changes to polar climate. That much has certainly been obvious in the Arctic. The dramatic decline of Arctic sea ice since 1981 is now firmly in the public consciousness as proof that global warming is real, and that it is a serious and pressing issue. The Arctic canary is unwell, to say the least. However at the other end of the planet, the Antarctic canary seems to be singing away happily, as the total extent has grown, albeit weakly, over the same period. The past two years have each been record-breakers, and 2014 looks to be building the same way. You can track how it’s going here, which shows how much more sea ice there is relative to the 1981-2010 average.


Perhaps the most important fact about the (slight) increase in total Antarctic sea ice extent is that it masks major and contrasting regional changes. For example, there has been a strong decrease in sea ice duration in the Bellingshausen Sea, while the duration has increased in the western Ross Sea. Such curiosities have led sea ice scientists to investigate several possible mechanisms, and explanations for these patterns are now starting to emerge.



The Amundsen Sea Low is a pattern of low atmospheric pressure in the Pacific part of the Southern Ocean, which drags warm air south and pushes cold air north. This southward flow of warm air meets Antarctica in the Bellingshausen Sea, explaining why ice in this area is now in decline. Meanwhile, the cold air is being pushed north from the western Ross Sea — where sea ice extent is increasing. So the Amundsen Sea Low can be used to explain at least two variations in Antarctic sea ice.

The Southern Annular Mode (also called the Antarctic Oscillation) is a term that describes the north-south position of the westerly wind belt that encircles Antarctica in the Southern Ocean. These winds are known variously as the “roaring 40s”, “furious 50s”, and “screaming 60s” depending on their latitude, and when they meet sea ice they drive it northwards (away from Antarctica). Like many other climate patterns (such as El Niño/La Niña), SAM has “positive” and “negative” phases. A positive SAM pushes the winds south to higher latitudes, meaning they encounter more sea ice, pushing more of it northwards and increasing the total ice extent. The Amundsen Sea Low also strengthens with the Southern Annular Mode’s positive phase. The mode has been strongly positive over the past three decades, helping to explain the overall increase in Antarctic sea ice extent, as well as the regional variations.

But that isn’t global warming … or is it?

Here’s the kicker: The strengthening of SAM over recent decades has been directly linked to human activity. Since the 1940s, ozone depletion and increasing greenhouse gases have caused the westerly winds to intensify and migrate south toward Antarctica.


The net effect of this drives sea ice further north and increases its total extent. There is still plenty of great work ahead to improve our understanding and modeling of Antarctica’s climate, but a basic message is emerging. Far from discounting climate change in the Southern Hemisphere, the apparent paradox of Antarctic sea ice is telling us that it is real and that we are contributing to it. The Antarctic canary is alive, but its feathers are increasingly wind-ruffled.

[vicsinad]

From the first post, Mr. Coleman based his views on the studies by the NIPCC. Fred Singer founded the NIPCC. Why is that relevant?

Singer was a paid consultant for Exxon Mobil, Shell, ARCO, and Sun Oil. (I wonder why they would want to refute climate change? )

Singer also advocates that second-hand smoke and passive smoking is not dangerous. Guess who paid for his studies? Big tobacco. (I wonder why they would want to refute the dangers of smoking? )

He joined with the American Petroleum Institute to initiate a failed attempt to spend millions of dollars to deny that global warming science is certain. (I wonder why the API would want to do that? )

Who is the NIPCC affiliated with and supported by? Oh, The Heartland Institute. Who are they? A conservative and libertarian think tank. They also worked with Phillip Morris to refute claims about smoking dangers. Heartland tends not to disclose their funding sources, but they include the Koch brother, Exxon Mobil, Phillip Morris, Pfizer, State Farm Insurance, and other big business.

Huh, big business trying to hide the facts so they don't lose profits? Sounds normal enough to me.

Yes, one of the "top" meteorologists looks to an oil funded man and studies and now global warming has always been a myth.

So much for thinking for ourselves.

Stop buying into the bullshit that keeps the corporations pockets growing, policies and laws written in their favor, and the rest of us looking like a bunch of idiots.

[Philosopher]

This is one of those issues that is often politicized.

I knew this article would come to this.

From the first post, Mr. Coleman based his views on the studies by the NIPCC. Fred Singer founded the NIPCC. Why is that relevant?

Singer was a paid consultant for Exxon Mobil, Shell, ARCO, and Sun Oil. (I wonder why they would want to refute climate change?

This is a controversial statement, but I will make it and stand by it. Oil companies fund both environmental groups and opposition groups similar to how Ford, Google, and Goldman Sachs fund both the Democrat and Republican presidential nominations.

Why would the oil companies do this?

Because they have a vested interest in blocking competition. Environmental groups make more money for oil companies than you can imagine.

We're discussing overpopulation with regards to life, and for that purpose, there is no difference between deer and humans. It's a numbers game, wild or not. You can't separate the two at your convenience and claim it means anything.

Actually, what we are discussing is climate change. It was Risto who mentioned overpopulation. And in what context we are both assuming. Overpopulation (in my analysis) is generally not an issue. I recognize that overpopulation has multiple affects on the ecosystem, including wildlife.

I have taken a number of environmental policy classes as a grad student, so I am familiar with the information you are putting forth, and jargon language like "carrying capacity".

What is even the purpose of that statement? And if am neither, either or both, how is it relevant to the discussion?

You need to lighten up Vicsinad. You have had a chip on your shoulder for too long. The statement was part humor and part reality. Reality because many eco terrorists write things like that.

A lot of the world's "experts" said Jesus would be coming back every year for the past who knows how many years. I'm still waiting for those prophecies of the Second Coming of Christ to come true, too.

The difference being is that the experts who have been predicting the second coming have been violating the obviously clear statements of scripture.

But what does any number of experts being wrong or right have to do with whether overpopulation will/can be a problem and about carrying capacity issues? Are you disregarding the several historical human battles over local resources due to overpopulation?

Everything. For experts have predicted literally the end of the world for hundreds of years due to overpopulation, carrying capacities, starvation, climate change, and et al.

This has been ongoing (and if you open your eyes, it's happening many places around the world), it's a closed cycle, and eventually there will be no where for human surplus to go.

My eyes are not closed because we disagree on some matters. I have taken a number of graduate courses on environmentalism, and have read a number of books on this subject. I am not blind.

[George S.]

Bullshit stories about falling rates of ice is nothing but scandolous.The Earth is NOT global warming but global cooling.We are told we are heading for a mini iceage.When one examines the evidence you have had a mixture of warming and cooling.The earth is very robust and can handle all sorts of things.The direction we are heading is global cooling not warming.

[vicsinad]

I knew this article would come to this.


This is a controversial statement, but I will make it and stand by it. Oil companies fund both environmental groups and opposition groups similar to how Ford, Google, and Goldman Sachs fund both the Democrat and Republican presidential nominations.

Why would the oil companies do this?

Because they have a vested interest in blocking competition. Environmental groups make more money for oil companies than you can imagine.

Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are bankrolled by big business.

And no, environmental organizations don't make more money from oil companies than I can imagine because I'm well aware of how many large national environmental groups take oil money. I don't advocate for it -- I find it hypocritical. But why they do it varies from one organization to the next, and are certainly different than why anti-global warming groups accept their money. And as you alluded to, there are reasons for why the oil companies donate to them. Maybe some environmental groups are disillusioned and believe that they can work with them to solve problems, and maybe some are just greedy and will take money where they can. It puts a positive spin on the oil companies, keeps that national environmental groups fat, and the world swimming in the same shit.

Actually, what we are discussing is climate change. It was Risto who mentioned overpopulation. And in what context we are both assuming. Overpopulation (in my analysis) is generally not an issue. I recognize that overpopulation has multiple affects on the ecosystem, including wildlife.

When you make a statement telling someone not to believe the hype about overpopulation, you opened the door for someone to oppose that statement, intentionally or not. You can close that door and say you don't want to discuss it. But you mentioned it. So in that context, yes, we were talking about overpopulation (and yes, overpopulation is related to climate change, also).

I have taken a number of environmental policy classes as a grad student, so I am familiar with the information you are putting forth, and jargon language like "carrying capacity".

Okay. I have an environmental law degree and a master's in environmental policy and science...I've taken over two-dozen graduate level classes focused solely on environmental law and policy. So when I say that language like carrying capacity is not jargon, do I now have more authority than you in saying that? Why even mention your classes? Your familiarity with a topic doesn't concern me as much as what I'm reading in your responses. Just state why you think "carrying capacity" is jargon language and we'll take it from there without getting into justifying why we feel entitled to say what we're saying.

You need to lighten up Vicsinad. You have had a chip on your shoulder for too long. The statement was part humor and part reality. Reality because many eco terrorists write things like that.

I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I just didn't see the point in writing that. For the record, many more people who are not eco-terrorists than are eco-terrorists write things like that We're discussing a serious issue, in my mind, and a lot of misinformation has been put forth. We all have those issues that drive us, and for me, this is one out of two or three that I don't take lightly.

Everything. For experts have predicted literally the end of the world for hundreds of years due to overpopulation, carrying capacities, starvation, climate change, and et al.

This does not mean, in anyway, that overpopulation, carrying capacity, starvation, and climate change are not true. Not Risto nor I said that we feared the world would end from overpopulation. He simply said he's worried about it, and I'm stating it is causing, and will cause, disastrous effects for human and non-humans. Now, if your view is that "the world ending from overpopulation is a myth" or that "humans going extinct due to overpopulation is a myth", those are more reasonable and likely more arguable statements. But that's not what you said.

My eyes are not closed because we disagree on some matters. I have taken a number of graduate courses on environmentalism, and have read a number of books on this subject. I am not blind.

If your eyes are open, then it's hard to deny the effect of overpopulation on human communities and its strain on resources. This is what my "eyes closed" comment was in reference to.