The Deathly Silence

[biffvernon]

Absolutely. Telecoms, distance learning, remote sensing, all part of the solution. Where would PPUK be without the Internet?

 

[Flyfisher]

And you could argue in a very utilitarian way that the benefits of nuclear power to many many millions of people, far outstrip the health problems of the much fewer numbers affected by Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, etc. It's probably not a popular point to push - so I won't!

I also think it's fair to say that the fossil fuel industry has been the cause of countless more deaths, long-term illness and environmental desecration than the nuclear industry, but you're right to say it's not a popular point. Odd really.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

But without the benefits of the last 2 fossil-fuel centuries for steam-, then internal combustion- and finally electrical-power, we would not have had the economic and technological developments that man has benefited from in the past 200 years.

This becomes a very circular argument! I remain optimistic in our species' creative and intellectual ability to kepp progressing technology to resolve our population/resource requirements.

That said, some of the stuff Biff posts/links to is concerning. I'm just not convinced that sophisticated climate models necessarily prove the causal link between human factors and the scale of projected climate change. Bigger fluctuations have happened throughout history without man's influence. As a rational scientist though, I remain open to hypothesis-testing and demonstrable repeatable proof.

 

[DaveBrigg]

According to all the statistics I could find, birth rates in every E U country are below the level required for population to remain stable. To halt the decline, there should be an average of 2.1 births per woman. Iceland almost reaches this, but they are the only country not to have an average below 2. The UK had, in 2005, an average birthrate of 1.7 children per woman, but the Eastern European countries have populations declining even more rapidly, with none getting close to 1.5.
Obviously this needs to be put into context with what is happening elsewhere in the world, but it does suggest that given the right conditions, population stability can be achieved.

 

[biffvernon]

Bigger fluctuations have happened throughout history without man's influence. As a rational scientist though, I remain open to hypothesis-testing and demonstrable repeatable proof.

The times when "Bigger fluctuations have happened" are associated with mass extictions. The end-Permian event, for example is thought to have wiped out 95% of fossil forming creatures. Not much comfort.

'Proof' is not part of rational science. It's a useful concept in mathematics and logic, but not part of science. Repeatable demonstation of a phenomenon is a useful tool in some areas of science but not in the case of global warming leading to human extinction. That's a kind of one off experiment. What we can do is use our knowledge of the basic physics, derived from repeatable demonstartion of experiment since the mid 19th century, and apply that to model building. Efficacy of the models can be tested by hindcasting and are gradually tweeked to improve confidence. That has been done and we are very confident of their reliability with experimentally derived error margins. That's why the climate scientists know they are right with a measured level of confidence.

 

[Flyfisher]

However, weather forecasting models are not particularly accurate for next month despite more than a century of experiment and 'hindcasting' (butterfly wings and all that stuff), yet the climate change lobby is asking people to radically change their behaviour and lifestyles based on a model of what may happen in 50 years time.

 

[biffvernon]

Don't confuse weather with climate. Weather forecasting models have little to do with the climate models. Weather is a chaotic system and will never be predictable for more than a few days ahead in any detail. We cannot know if it will rain on the afternoon of July the 12th in Manchester, but we can be very sure that December will be a colder month than July.

 

[Flyfisher]

I was trying to suggest that, regardless of the facts of the matter, the real challenge for the climate change lobby is to persuade people to change their lifestyles in quite radical ways. The man on the Clapham omnibus may not understand the scientific difference between climate and weather but he knows about 'forecasts' and how unreliable they are, so why should he change? Still, he's using public transport so that's a start. :wink:

 

[Lime]

I think population growth is the cause of most of the Earth's problems today, let alone tomorrow or next year.
Attempting to curtail western man's behaviour while eastern man's behaviour is unmitigated in it's growth and escalation to similar consumption will not solve or change much in our world either.
Things will get worst because humans will make more demands on the planet.
There will come a time soon when all wild animals are in cages and forests are just a fabled memory.
I mention animals and trees because mankind is almost totally selfish which will be the reason for it's downfall eventually.
Meanwhile more land will be cleared of natural habitat and the general pillaging of the world's finite resources will go on regardless and unabated.

Global warming is but a distraction.

 

[yamin]

I'll get my coat........

 

[bower1]

I think population growth is the cause of most of the Earth's problems today, let alone tomorrow or next year.

Global warming is but a distraction.

I agree.

 

[biffvernon]

I was trying to suggest that, regardless of the facts of the matter, the real challenge for the climate change lobby is to persuade people to change their lifestyles in quite radical ways. The man on the Clapham omnibus may not understand the scientific difference between climate and weather but he knows about 'forecasts' and how unreliable they are,

I think it unwise to be regardless of the facts. The man who does not understand the difference between climate and weather knows nothing about the reliability of forecasts. It behoves those of us who know to inform those who don't, lest Lime's pessimistic view becomes real.

It is clear that there is a close correlation between birth rates and women's education, health care and security in old age. We know why populations expands and we know why it doesn't (and it's nothing to do with 'eastern man' whoever he is). A more equal and better cared for world population would be more stable.

Global warming, far from being a distraction, is the most likely phenomenon to reduce population in a nasty way.

 

[bower1]

(and it's nothing to do with 'eastern man' whoever he is).

I'd assumed in the context this was written that 'eastern man' would be the opposite of 'western man', an attempt to describe those in 'developed countries' and 'developing countries', where there is in most cases a significant difference in population growth rates.

Global warming, far from being a distraction, is the most likely phenomenon to reduce population in a nasty way.

But if world does not control its population, there will be some nasty way that it will happen anyway, at some unknown point in the future.

 

[biffvernon]

So 'western man' is the one with the high level of education, health and welfare and low birth rate but high carbon footprint, while 'eastern man' is the opposite in all those respects?

Which particular bit of the population should the world 'control'?

 

[Lime]

Is this part of the global warming argument or just prevarication to avoid the contemplation of population growth and it's unpleasant but relentless consequences?

 

[yamin]

Look, far be it from me to try and prevent your debate, but can I just point you in the direction of the thread 'The Age of Stupid'? You guys seem to be having exactly the same debate, virtually word for word, and think you might be losing the rest of us in your efforts to gain the scientific/theoretical/actual/moral upper hand. Thats fine, I just won't bother to read the posts, as I suspect a lot of others aren't, but it seems a shame as surely the whole point of this discussion is to bring people around to your respective arguments, not to have them lose interest altogether? Not coming down on either side, but just saying that now I'm off theres probably just the two of you in the 'room' now, your audience has left the building. Is that what you wanted? :?

 

[Schoolmarm]

Oooh I didn't know we had mods now.

 

[yamin]

God forbid you should pass over a chance to say something snide to me, Schoolmarm.

 

[Moo]

and think you might be losing the rest of us ........ I just won't bother to read the posts, as I suspect a lot of others aren't ....... your audience has left the building.

I've logged in** in order to respond to those points, Yamin. Just because I've not taken part in the discussion doesn't mean that I've not been following the argument with great interest, and I reckon that there are other people who have been doing the same.
It's fascinating and frightening, and I really do appreciate the fact that there are people who know so much and are prepared to take time to debate in language that dimwits like me can understand.

Thanks, Biff et all.

xx M

** My system won't log me in automatically.

 

[bower1]

So 'western man' is the one with the high level of education, health and welfare and low birth rate but high carbon footprint, while 'eastern man' is the opposite in all those respects?

Probably yes (I'm not trying to defend the words by the way). The difficulty is when the 'eastern man' wants, and might achieve, the lifestyle of the 'western man'.

Which particular bit of the population should the world 'control'?

All of it, but control is a difficult word.