Gloom & doom

[Doc Harry]

"The world's population grew very slowly until about 1750. There was a long period of stationary growth (no growth) until 1000 B.C.E. , when the world's population was approximately 300 million; this was followed by a period of slow growth from 1000 B.C.E. to approximately 1750, at which time global population was an estimated 800 million. Until this time, the world's population was kept in check by high death rates, which were due to the combined effects of plagues, famines, unsanitary living conditions, and general poverty. After 1750, the world's population grew substantially; by 1950 it had tripled to around 2.5 billion. In this 200-year period, the doubling time was 122 years. Growth from 1950 to 1985 was even more dramatic; by 1985, the human population was 5 billion. World population had doubled in thirty-five years. By 2000 global population was 6 billion and is projected to be 9 billion in 2050."

"In 1998, the UN’s “best guess” for 2050 was that there would be 8.9 billion humans on the planet. Two years later, the figure was revised to 9.3 ­billion—­in effect, adding two Brazils to the world. The number subsequently fell and rose again. Modest changes in birthrates can have bigger consequences over a couple of generations: The recent rise in U.S. and European birthrates is among the developments factored into the UN’s latest “middle” projection that world population in 2050 will be just over 9.1 billion."

Who cares about reefs or global warming or pollution?

Conservation efforts must be re-directed towards population control. With 9.1 billion people on the planet, no one is going to care about the health of your reefs.

Population control is the key to conservation.

 

[Bowmouth]

Maybe so.
The area where I came from, Derbyshire in central uk was once a tropical sea, (I can assure you from experience that is certainly not the case with UK seas now) this is evident in the fossils which are present in the limestone there.
Also the area was about at the extent of the glacial activity during the last ice age, hence vast sand and gravel deposits in the south of the region.
I know this relates to a massive time scale, but kind of makes the current temperature fluctuation we are experiencing look like a 'drop in the ocean'.

Thanks for your input.
I think one big difference between then and now is that then it was a gradual natural process that developed over a very long time and that now the process is man-made and taking place in a relatively very short period of time.

I don't think we're dealing with a "drop in the ocean" though and think our world is racing towards becoming a very "unhappy" place to live for us human beings.

 

[Bowmouth]

"
Who cares about reefs or global warming or pollution?

Conservation efforts must be re-directed towards population control. With 9.1 billion people on the planet, no one is going to care about the health of your reefs.

Population control is the key to conservation.

Thank you for sharing.

I completely agree.

There's way too many of us and we all want a nice house with nice things in it and a big car (no, two big cars!) parked in front of it. We all want to have a nice big meal three times a day and a couple of cold beers afterwards. And we all (well, most of us) want to put a bunch of kids on this world and let them have all the same things (or more) than we have.

Real conservation is just not possible (or desired) with this goal in our minds and with the current number of bi-pods we have on this world....

 

[jbbobo]

Hopefully the Global Warming nonsense is about to die, surely to be replaced by another tool for the politicians. I dream of scientists and a media that are not agenda driven.
Perhaps The world could focus on the much more pressing issues on the enviroment that ARE 100% man caused and 100% man correctable. I believe we are destroying the planet, I just disagree that warming is our weapon of choice

Quoted from an article today 2/22/09 by Walter E. Williams

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ...Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article....

The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. ...


England's now-disgraced University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been a leader in climate research data. Their data, collected and analyzed by them, have been used for years to bolster IPCC efforts to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Climatologists, including CRU's disgraced former director Professor Phil Jones, have been accused of manipulating data and criminally withholding scientific information to prevent its disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Jones, considered to be the high priest of the manmade global warming movement, has been in the spotlight since he was forced to step down as CRU's director after the leaking of e-mails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. In a recent interview with the BBC, he admitted that he did not believe that "the debate on climate change is over" and that he didn't "believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this.

 

[lord khram]

Professor Jones, considered to be the high priest of the manmade global warming movement, has been in the spotlight since he was forced to step down as CRU's director after the leaking of e-mails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. In a recent interview with the BBC, he admitted that he did not believe that "the debate on climate change is over" and that he didn't "believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this.

Whilst scientists can continue to convince politicians that there is such a problem as man made global warming, the big fat gravy train that the scientists are sat on will long continue at our expense. Also I feel that many politicians certainly in the uk, are not the brightest of people, and maybe are too easilly convinced, or is it simply that they want to be convinced by the scientists because it gives them a wole list of additional taxes that they can impose on the public.

 

[Bowmouth]

Does it really matter if it's global warming or something else?
Fact is, that our natural world is rapidly changing and not for the better.
I think we all can agree on that.

And it's not fairies, wizards and goblins who are making those changes.

 

[jkaterenchuk]

Does it really matter if it's global warming or something else?
Fact is, that our natural world is rapidly changing and not for the better.
I think we all can agree on that.

And it's not fairies, wizards and goblins who are making those changes.

Well where I live we had a much milder winter lots of sunshine and less snow. In my books that's an improvement. 2 hours drive southwest of here and they had record snowfalls. So I would thing they have a different perspective then I do.

So I suspect you will have difficulty getting agreement. The world, peoples opinions and frame of references are all different.

John

 

[Bowmouth]

So I suspect you will have difficulty getting agreement. The world, peoples opinions and frame of references are all different.

John

I was more thinking about the global scale of pollution, extinction of species and natural habitat loss.

 

[jkaterenchuk]

I was more thinking about the global scale of pollution, extinction of species and natural habitat loss.

Oops thought the current line of discussion was regarding global warming....

John

 

[Quero]

Statistics, pure and simple: Earth Clock