I may have presented this video before (?) But it explains climate change much differently. I rewatched it and found that open ground is a no no. Does that mean no weeding? As I said, we have a large patch of nettle this year. At first I started pulling it but my daughter said to leave it. It is like squash leaves she said, preventing other weeds from getting in. Now it is tall as a person and we can make the fiber I was talking about when I pull it.Later she will put down rabbit mulch. Rabbits are rather wasteful with the hay. They eat the seeds and the alfalfa leave and crunch up the rest to have it fall in the trays. This provides the natural weed preventer for next year. Comments below the video at youtube are inspirational. People can do it on a much larger scale.
There is no impasse for the rest of the points: either one acknowledges physics or doesn't, as well as basic processes involving doing business in capitalist systems. About the two points that you discuss, one reason for lower birth rates is better education for women, which also happens to lead to better jobs, and in turn careers. With careers and better prospects (which is what leads to prosperity), not to mention knowledge of artificial contraception, people choose to have fewer or no children. The problem with that idea is that overpopulation is based not on land but on resource availability. That means you can have two people on a large land mass, but if the latter only has enough resources for one person, then that area is overpopulated. Exactly! It's resource availability that's important and not just space. One can cram everyone in a small space, but if there aren't enough fossil fuels, minerals, etc., for all of them, then there's overpopulation. In addition, it's not just resource availability that's involved but resource demand per person. That means even if there are fewer people, if each person requires high levels of resources, then overpopulation might also take place. For example, the U.S. has less than 5 pct of the world's population but needs over 20 pct of world oil production, to power up, among other things, up to a quarter of the world's passenger vehicles and light trucks. If everyone else wanted similar conveniences, then we would need more than double oil production. Last point: some who know nothing about business, economics, and capitalism, might argue that most are not expected to achieve such and that only a few can. Unfortunately, that's not how business works: it wants its employees to sell more goods and services to growing consumer markets in order to earn more. In short, if you want to get that promotion that you wanted, and to buy that nice, fancy car you always wanted, then you better sell more nice, fancy cars, and you better expect more who can't afford to buy them to do so in the future. Because if they can't get what they want, neither can you: your ability to buy nice things is ultimately based on your ability to sell more nice things to more people. Which is what we've been seeing the past three decades: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470 But how much energy and material resources are needed to meet this? Like skeptics and even some global warming deniers, I argue that the science is so complex that not only are we not be able to make conclusive points about climate change we don't what to expect next. For example, we detected over 50 positive feedback loops only during the last two decades. We did not realize most of them before that, during the previous three decades when we were still studying the phenomenon of global warming. To make matters worse, we also didn't realize until later that negative feedback has undesireable effects, like oceans absorbing carbon dioxide and even heat but also connected to algae bloom and acidification. Given that, I'm not certain about geo-engineering, especially given the point that global biomass remains static. That means what deniers keep mentioning might true, but not in the way they thought: climate is so complex that man cannot affect it, but the same complexity also means that a small forcing factor may lead to unintended consequences. It's like bifurcation in action: http://fleeingvesuvius.org/2011/10/...complexity-energy-and-the-globalised-economy/
I've never done this before. You're going to be the only one on my ignore list. Your thinly-veiled insults don't bother me but you do.
I don't deny climate changes. It always has. I just argue with how the powers that be are approaching it. Forcing green energy before it is ready. If it actually were ready, people would willingly buy it. Wind and solar farms are being put up around here with the threat of expansion of set ups that do little energy production and we are forced to pay for them instead of being able to buy items that work and won't make things worse. I have a personal history with solar.
The reason Ralph bothers us is that we believe what we know and we don't feel the need to change our positions. Ralph is knowledgeable and skilled in debate; something else we don't really want to do. He is trying to educate, as well to make us see his point of view. I don't want to take the time to research the info I need to present a case, like in debate. I know that Ralph is right about much of the economics and that what I see as important in protecting the earth is not what big business and governments are interested in doing. You can read his info or not. I have seen what is happening and set myself up for most eventualities. Short of the gov't instituting marshal law and ousting me and mine from my holdings, I will be fine and hope some of the info I have given will help you guys too.
The points I gave are based on physics: the physical limitations of the biosphere and gravity. Those two, in fact, are what drives oil production issues. Climate change denial doesn't refer to denial that climate changes but that the changes are driven by a slight warming in surface temperature anomaly, in turn indirectly driven by carbon emissions acting as a forcing factor. Instead, deniers argue that warming is taking place naturally. About green energy, I don't think it will ever be green or ready. At best, technology can increase energy returns to around six or so, but the need for fossil fuels for material resources will negate that. (Consider the energy and resources needed to manufacture solar panels, for example, and what's needed for mining and shipping.)
I think this would go more smoothly if it were done in the form of a discussion rather than a fillibuster.
Oh, it's fine. We have others on board like this, maybe not so skilled...it's just their way. A discussion would take too long. I wonder how much of this is actually him or copy and paste from books like the one he referred us to. I mean, to which he referred us.