Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Doctors say that you can stop global warming by not having kids!

Announcements Posted on
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CatatonicStupor)
    It's a logical idea. Stop the next generation from being born, and eventually, the world will come back to its natural equilibrium.
    That's quite a Malthusian notion - let the population decline naturally, and it will be able to sustain itself :p:
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wonder when climate skepticism will stop being fashionable...
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HCD)
    Wonder when climate skepticism will stop being fashionable...
    I'm going to abide by your signature and assume that you're taking the piss :p:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    You can't deny that it'll help though. Less people use less power.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milady de Winter)
    Thanks. I do think that the science needs to be looked at more closely, as does the media reaction to the whole issue. But that could take up an entire thread on its own (and probably already has).
    Oh, believe me, the science is being looked at more closely. But the media don't report on it. There are loads of websites which pretty much bust the global warming hysteria apart with brilliant aplomb.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milady de Winter)
    I'm going to abide by your signature and assume that you're taking the piss :p:
    In this particular case, the assumption is incorrect.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milady de Winter)
    Or maybe, the link between human intervention and climate change hasn't been proved (in fact, recent cooling suggests that the link is at best tenuous), ergo the number of children you have will have a minimal impact on the climate in terms of carbon/temperature.

    Why does global warming have to top the agenda for everything? There are numerous media complaints about falling birthrates in the UK, yet in the context of global warming, that's a 'good thing'. It's the same scenario with developing economies - people state that they want to end poverty, but this poverty is occurring in the very nations whose economies and industrial development are stunted by caps on carbon emissions.

    I could go on... but this has already turned into a rant I just detest the unthinking acceptance of "man-made climate change", and the political/media machinations that place it higher on the agenda than issues that really need our attention. :mad:

    *awaits the Climate Inquisition to tie me to a stake and begin kindling the righteous fires for the heretic*
    If climate change is really caused by humans though - and current thinking seems to be that it is - then of course it should be high on the agenda, and it needs to be seen to, because of the effects it causes, i.e being drowned by rising sea-levels, or everything getting cooked to death.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Lol and the government keeps bringing over hundreds of thousadns of immigrants a year... Tell the Africans to stop having children, that is where the population problem is.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Airel)
    You can't deny that it'll help though. Less people use less power.
    Of course fewer people consume less energy, but the question is, does the consumption of (carbon-generated) energy contribute to the apocalyptic predictions of global warming, as we are constantly informed that it does? I, and others, think not.

    Naturally it makes sense to conserve energy from an economic perspective - I don't believe in egregious levels of wastage (or pollution, for that matter). I merely question the "human-induced" consensus on climate change, and its attendant political circus. The fact remains that fossil fuels currently remain the cheapest and most efficient method of acquiring energy (unless there is a greater willingness to switch to nuclear power), and it would be economic suicide to try and rely on 'sustainable' energy for the most part, at this time.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigeon Explosion)
    If climate change is really caused by humans though - and current thinking seems to be that it is - then of course it should be high on the agenda, and it needs to be seen to, because of the effects it causes, i.e being drowned by rising sea-levels, or everything getting cooked to death.
    Well, firstly: it isn't. Climate change is now and always has been, a natural process. Which is why we have gone through ice ages and other periods of climate craziness.

    Secondly, the support for global warming in the media is often based solely on research which corroborates the notion, while there is also lots (I would indeed say more) data that shows that it's either not happening or nowhere near as catastrophic as people say.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milady de Winter)
    Of course fewer people consume less energy, but the question is, does the consumption of (carbon-generated) energy contribute to the apocalyptic predictions of global warming, as we are constantly informed that it does? I, and others, think not.

    Naturally it makes sense to conserve energy from an economic perspective - I don't believe in egregious levels of wastage (or pollution, for that matter). I merely question the "human-induced" consensus on climate change, and its attendant political circus. The fact remains that fossil fuels currently remain the cheapest and most efficient method of acquiring energy (unless there is a greater willingness to switch to nuclear power), and it would be economic suicide to try and rely on 'sustainable' energy for the most part, at this time.
    Even if you do believe that climate change isn't caused by humans - what about when the fossil fuel runs out, which it eventually will, especially taking into account the increase in demand? And the fact that the need for fossil fuels builds dependence on other countries.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BruceTaylor)
    Well, firstly: it isn't. Climate change is now and always has been, a natural process. Which is why we have gone through ice ages and other periods of climate craziness.

    Secondly, the support for global warming in the media is often based solely on research which corroborates the notion, while there is also lots (I would indeed say more) data that shows that it's either not happening or nowhere near as catastrophic as people say.
    Of course I know that there have been climate changes not related to human activity. That doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is incapable of having effects on the climate, though.
    Also, I would simply love to see this data. Any links?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    tbh i dont give a **** what it does for climate change. i dont see how more than 2 children is ethical. 2 parents produce 2 children i.e enough to sustain the current population. great. leave it at that eh. the optimum uk population according to an Imperial researcher is 30 million. we cant just keep spreading like a disease. at some point in time we have to face up to the fact that we will need to regulate reproduction. the sooner the better imo.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigeon Explosion)
    If climate change is really caused by humans though - and current thinking seems to be that it is - then of course it should be high on the agenda, and it needs to be seen to, because of the effects it causes, i.e being drowned by rising sea-levels, or everything getting cooked to death.
    1) Every summer, a large of the Antarctic ice shelf melts into the sea, and then freezes again during the winter. That's a hell of a lot of water. Do sea levels rise to the point of swamping land masses as a result? No.

    2) The proof that climate change is caused by humans in incredibly tenuous. The IPCC (inter-governmental panel on climate change) has been repeatedly shown up as a biased organisation with a political agenda, quashing the evidence of climate scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus on human-induced global warming. Now that measurements have indicated a period of cooling over the last decade, the IPCC are furiously backtracking, calling this an 'anomaly' and insisting that it will get hotter soon, yes really. Same thing as regards the disproven 'hockey stick graph', etc.

    3) Think about the vested interests in perpetuating the idea of global warming. Scientists in the relevant field seem to be obliged to incorporate global warming into their research proposals if they are to stand any hope of getting funding. Politicians have invested their time in it because it represents a tangible cause in which they can engage, and which proves popular with certain sectors of voters and the media. And certain elements of the media invest in the idea because it assuages a kind of liberal middle-class guilt about the way people live their lives, and because it provides a perfect platform from which to campaign for issues such as poverty alleviation (despite the fact that environmental measures tend to adversely affect developing economies, as I've mentioned).

    4) Finally (at last!) - how do you think global temperatures rose before widespread carbon emissions? If carbon emissions, from extensive industrialisation and urbanisation, cause global warming, then how do you explain well-documented pre-industrial periods of high temperature such as that around the 14th century, known as the Medieval Warm Period? Unless it was caused by the methane from the all the cows pastured by the village peasants? :rolleyes:

    Ok I'm done for now, my fingers hurt :woo:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    Lol and the government keeps bringing over hundreds of thousadns of immigrants a year... Tell the Africans to stop having children, that is where the population problem is.
    Thank you for your educated and informed perspective on this important debate. :no:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    okkkk, i havent read every response, but i dnt think the thread starter was disputing tht technically less people mean less emmisions etccccc but i think they were just saying tht its wrong to tell people how many kids to have. but yeh i think tht it is stupid and pointless to tell people not to have more kids, its an independent choice and people will do wt they like and they certainly dnt like being told wt to do by the state!

    alsooo i think its one of those completely pointless studies, where the money and time would have been better spent by planting trees and educating people about saving energy etc.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milady de Winter)
    1) Every summer, a large of the Antarctic ice shelf melts into the sea, and then freezes again during the winter. That's a hell of a lot of water. Do sea levels rise to the point of swamping land masses as a result? No.

    2) The proof that climate change is caused by humans in incredibly tenuous. The IPCC (inter-governmental panel on climate change) has been repeatedly shown up as a biased organisation with a political agenda, quashing the evidence of climate scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus on human-induced global warming. Now that measurements have indicated a period of cooling over the last decade, the IPCC are furiously backtracking, calling this an 'anomaly' and insisting that it will get hotter soon, yes really. Same thing as regards the disproven 'hockey stick graph', etc.

    3) Think about the vested interests in perpetuating the idea of global warming. Scientists in the relevant field seem to be obliged to incorporate global warming into their research proposals if they are to stand any hope of getting funding. Politicians have invested their time in it because it represents a tangible cause in which they can engage, and which proves popular with certain sectors of voters and the media. And certain elements of the media invest in the idea because it assuages a kind of liberal middle-class guilt about the way people live their lives, and because it provides a perfect platform from which to campaign for issues such as poverty alleviation (despite the fact that environmental measures tend to adversely affect developing economies, as I've mentioned).

    4) Finally (at last!) - how do you think global temperatures rose before widespread carbon emissions? If carbon emissions, from extensive industrialisation and urbanisation, cause global warming, then how do you explain well-documented pre-industrial periods of high temperature such as that around the 14th century, known as the Medieval Warm Period? Unless it was caused by the methane from the all the cows pastured by the village peasants? :rolleyes:

    Ok I'm done for now, my fingers hurt :woo:
    More of the ice sheet is melting than before, though. And vested interests in perpetuating the idea of global warming? What about the wealthy oil companies, for whom cutting consumption of oil would greatly cut profits? Surely they would have some influence, especially on governments. And warming can be caused by any number of things, and there is debate about whether the Medieval Warm Period was a global event anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pigeon Explosion)
    Of course I know that there have been climate changes not related to human activity. That doesn't necessarily mean that human activity is incapable of having effects on the climate, though.
    Also, I would simply love to see this data. Any links?
    Oh, Polar ice at record high
    NASA data out of line
    Global Warming not occurred over last 11 years
    31,000 scientists deny man causes global warming
    Cows a greater cause of global warming than man
    Flawed Data/Lack of debate

    That should help with both of your points.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thanks.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry to slap you back to reality, but here goes.
    Climate change has been happening since the "dawn of ime", or more correctly since the formation of Earth. The climate has changed dramatically over this time, from ice ages with several km of ice over parts of the world, to hot periods when the sea level was 150m higher than today. These are cause by many factors, from the albedo effect of Earth, to Milankovich cycles of the sun and the Earth's orbit. Life on earth has also had a huge effect, such as plants converting CO2 to oxygen, and coccolith blooms sequestering atmospheric CO2 (Cliffs of Dover being a visible example).
    The impact of man on the greenhouse effect is known as the enhanced greenhouse effect. (The GH effect being a natural process).
    The EGH has been shown to have a dramatic impact on global climate, (dramatic because of the timeframe it is happening in, rather than the total effect).
    Climate change is a notoriously difficult thing to study, because of the sheer number of variables involved in global climate. We don't know about every feedback mechanism that kicks into action at critical changes in climate.

    Also on the point of "cows a greater cause of global warming than man", that is a severely stupid argument. Why are the cows there in the first place?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: January 10, 2009
New on TSR

GCSE mocks revision

Talk study tips this weekend

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.