Aha! So THAT’S why I had to use the air conditioning last night. I’ll send you the bill.

It’s a good point, and one that I’ve been asked before, for obvious reasons.

I support giving people good health care and education and other things that actually do result in lower birth rates.

I want to reduce population by attrition rather than by actively killing off those who are here.

That said, I fear that this will not happen. Collapse is likely imminent. With collapse will come the Great Human Die-Off. I expect 90% mortality within the first decade of whenever the die-off begins. I’d probably expect half the remaining to die over a slightly longer period. Whether any will survive beyond that is beyond me.

Of course, that’s just a guess. And, I won’t be proven wrong in my lifetime because I intend to make sure that if the die-off begins, I’m in the first wave. I can’t survive without modern medical technology and the logistics to get it to my door.

I consider it to be a fact that the science of global warming/climate change is muddier than a larger group of people would like us to believe.

I agree with your conclusion about environmentalism. So, if I were better at debates, I’d probably let this slide. However, I’m just way too anal-retentive to do so.

“I consider it to be a fact” is semantically equal to “it is my opinion”.

I’m curious why you chose to make your opinion sound like fact when it so clearly isn’t.

Other than that, yes, environmentalism just makes sense for a whole host of reasons. Ocean acidification is a huge one. Desertification is another. Fresh water supply is another. There are no shortage of problems for which environmentalism will, of necessity, be part of the solution.

Of course, for all such problems, human population reduction must also be a tremendous part of the solution. The planet simply can’t support so many people, with or without global warming. With global warming, the problem is orders of magnitude worse.

What I can’t figure out is this:

Why is it that we can’t all behind most of the “environmental” goals, even if we can’t get behind the science?

Conservation is a no-brainer. It can’t be BETTER to use more energy to do the same tasks. I’m not talking “don’t explore space because we burn lots of fuel to do it” — some things are worth the energy expenditure! But modern CFLs are incadescents, if more complex to use. (If you disagree, try lighting for front porch with the average CFL not designed specifically for cold weather once the temp drops to ten below 0) Beyond that, LED technology will probably be beefed up to be more acceptable in home lighting, and I’m all for that too. More energy efficient appliances, better insulation. (Made from recycled materals? So much the better!) Wind and Solar power seems a no brainer for clean energy at the source of use with no strain on transport systems. Solar doubles as a means of evening out peak demand issues. Geothermal is wonderful in some climates and situations. I’d like to keep seeing exploration into tidal. We should see the value in diversification of our nation’s energy portfolio. I understand the debates on hydro and nuclear, but I think we can mitigate those concerns, and a broadly diversified energy production system means we can choose what’s right for each situation and maybe in some cases we won’t NEED to take on the risks of some options.

Sure we should keep exploring ways to use coal in ways that are safe — It is our most abundant option and maybe someday we’ll be at a point where there’s no other choice to keep up with demand — but why not conserve it where we can? Nonrenewable resources being what they are, our own oil, gas, and coal resources could be considered a long-term strategic asset. Why can’t we all agree that air pollution has a cost and that we should all work to reduce that cost? Why can’t we all agree that even if loss of biodiversity represents something that we might not be able to put a price tag that we all agree on now, we should still avoid causing damage that we can’t undo in case the cost is higher than we think? Yes, there are risk-reward trade-offs, and some rewards are worth risks — but most of the risks we’re taking are just done in the name of convenience and the lack of the vision and political will to make changes.

Ahahahahahah. Unlike yours that read like an average scientific paper. Good one!

I don’t toss my education out there as “proof” I’m smarter than everyone else. Also when I dismiss something, I give facts whenever possible.

M. Burns

At present exponential population growth.. How long until we are standing shoulder to shoulder over the face of the earth?

Assuming Unhindered.

Good question. I don’t know. I did hear at a lecture that at current population growth, in 5,000 years the mass of humans will be greater than the mass of the planet.

Obviously, this can’t happen.

The same would be true at any population growth rate greater than zero except that the time frame would change.

Any positive population growth is, by definition, not sustainable.

Perhaps if we could terraform another planet, we could continue to increase our population. However, rather than proving we can terraform another planet, we are proving that we can’t even keep this one terraformed.

Ahahahahahah. Unlike yours that read like an average scientific paper. Good one!

Did he forgot to put the mandatory wikipedia link to make his post more “professional”

#55 Who wouldn’t

Whenever I feel pretty hot, I start fantasizing about all those Venezeualan women and I start feeling cooler real quick. Sometimes I get a little nausious too.

There are literally more people who believe in elves than there are climate scientists who deny global warming.

This is the Fox news definition of a “controversy”…