Global Warming

I believe in global warming but I don't think it has anything to do with humanity.  I think what we are experiencing is part of a natural cycle.  If you check into it you'll find that every planet in the solar system is heating up.  We can't be blamed for that surely.

They'll heat up for a while and then cool off again.   

 Money is always the problem.  One way or another it usually comes down to money. 

I don't know about there being enough food either.  I read that the population is 6 billion, and if 6 billion became 9 billion that we would need 2 Planet Earth's to sustain it.  If that's true we must be at breaking point. 

Your information is highly inaccurate. Find better sources.

We have plenty of food, and the world doesn't even use most of its potential agrigate areas.

There's plenty of food. And no, money is not the problem. The problem is getting the food where it needs to go, and not because of costs. It's relatively inexpensive to transport things in the modern era.

The issue is one of politics, not money, not agricultural area or potential.

There's plenty of food. There's plenty of money. The problem is one of human creation.

There are 800 million hungry people in the world today, yet we produce enough food, even at current levels and without really trying to feed every single person on the planet over 3500 calories per day (nearly twice the amount needed to live).

This has increased over the last 20 years, and it will go up by another 30% over the course of at least the next 20 years. This is a far greater increase in pace than population. We're greatly stacking up mountains of unused food.

Here's a link to one of many sources on the matter: http://www.fao.org/

The World Health Organization echos that research: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/index.html

As stated, you need better sources. There's plenty of food. You've been grossly misinformed.

 Money is the problem Ketamine.  800 million hungry people you say.  Those 800 million hungry people are only hungry because they don't have money. 

It sucks but that's the way the world works. 

As for global warming, I don't think its just a coincidence that the whole solar system is heating up, this is due to the sun and something called solar cycle 24.  This information is in the public domain but it's not exactly headline news. 

I think global warming is disinformation. 

Money isn't the problem. It's just not.

You were wrong about there not being enough food. You were wrong about the population being too large, and now despite being shown that your information was bad you're telling me that money is the problem.

Guess what? You're wrong again.

It's simply not that expensive to get food to where it needs to go. The money is NOT the issue. It's just not. It's a relatively simple thing for us to put soldiers anywhere in the world in under 24 hours with enough equipment to survive the apocalypse.

I assure you that if the US (and most first-world nations of the world) can do that, they can also deliver a few thousand pounds of rice to where it needs to go. The cost of transport simply isn't that high.

The problem is not economic. The problem is political. Period.

You need better sources.

DMX,

You've heard those things on TV or the radio that talk about, "For just one dollar a day, you can save a child's life."

I presume you've heard those ads. They're not lying. That's about what it takes, and that's with a lot of people taking profit in along the way.

800 Million people. Let's put this in perspective:

Gambling in the United States alone makes over 200 Billion Dollars per year in PROFIT.

We (the US) GIVE AWAY over 330 Billion per year in foreign aid as a nation, and we're not even trying. That's not including emergency funds or military aid that we give to foreign nations.

Just on what we give away (which is less than 2% of our total budget) in a given year, we could easily feed all 800 million people the amount of food they need to live FOR TWO YEARS and still have some left over.

That's JUST the United States, and one of our SMALLEST budget proportions.

The profits from gambling in the US in a single year, by itself, could feed the world's starving population for almost two years.

That's just one year's PROFITS - and only from the US market.

This doesn't even take into account the more profitable industries such as oil, pharmaceuticals, defense spending, entertainment (movies, books, video games), or many other industries that are far more profitable.

Nor does it take into account that the United States is not the only nation in the world. Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and so on all have resources as well.

No.

There's plenty of money. We're talking about chump change here in relative terms. To put it in perspective, we'd be talking about JUST the United States, in order to feed the world's population, it would take ONE PENNY out of every $15,909 dollars of our national budget to feed the entire world's starving population for over two years.

No, you're wrong (again). Money is not the problem. It's just not.

It's very inexpensive to physically move food. Food itself is inexpensive. It's not expensive to get life sustaining food to people that need it. The cost is not the problem.

Don't believe everything you read Ketamine.  It's the money, that is the cause of just about every problem you can think of.  Even when it's not the main cause its always a major factor.  Just because people could afford to do what your saying doesn't mean they will.

They're not going to do it without getting something in return.   

I never actually said there wasn't enough food, I said I wasn't sure there was enough. 

Humanity is too selfish.  800 million people hungry, that says it all.  The fact this situation exists is proof I'm right. 

Did it ever occur to you that somebody somewhere see's that as a good method of population control?  That's why they don't help and will continue to keep these people hungry by not helping them. 

"Don't believe everything you read" from the guy that was absolutely positive we didn't have enough food in the world because someone told him that.

Nice citation of information to support your claim too. Not only does your argument not stand the test of reason, but it's completely unfounded, and you've already shown your knowledge on the topic to be lacking.

Thanks for insisting that you know what you're talking about and that I'm totally wrong despite that so far you've been about as wrong as wrong can be.

The condescending "don't believe everything you read" remark really helps add that special punch, since I really appreciate being talked down to despite being the only one of the two of us that has the first damned clue what they're talking about.

Whether or not people are willing to spend the money is irrelevant. They have the money. So do governments.

If you stop stamping your tiny feet and reconcile yourself to the reality that you were badly uninformed or misinformed about this issue despite presenting yourself as otherwise, you'd be interested to know that organizations such as the WHO, CARE, Red Cross, and so on actually raise plenty of money.

I'm not certain why you're being so adamant about defending your uninformed position. I don't really care either except that it can confuse others and further muddy the issue, making overcoming it more difficult to overcome than it already is.

There is plenty of money. There is plenty of food. The reason why food isn't in the hands of starving people is because of the politics involved.

The problem of hunger in the world is one of human creation.

Nothing more, nothing less; that's reality.

The food isn't in the places it needs to be because people in positions of power do not like to relinquish power. This goes for people on both sides (those with the food as well as those whose people need the food).

People starve because their government doesn't want to give up control and influence.

Nations like the US are unable to deliver food to the people that need it because we do not give gifts without asking for something in return. When we deliver "aid" to countries... We're not actually doing that to be nice. There are strings attached, and ideas as well as leverage that goes along with it.

The people who are starving do so because their government wants to keep control, and because the sources of potential food will not deliver it without getting something back out of it.

The problem is purely political.

Not money. Not food production.

That's the fact of the matter; That's reality.

I've copied and pasted this phrase from my earlier comment, seeing as you can't be bothered to go back and read it.  (I'm not actually suggesting you should but if your gonna shoot me down you might want to know that your firing blanks)

And that's twice now.  Where in the following statement did I say I was positive there was no food?

I don't know about there being enough food either.

This is a comment from someone (me) who isn't so sure there is enough food.  How would I know?  I'm too old to believe everything I read because history has taught me not to. 

Nobody told me there wasn't enough food.  I just don't believe anything the government says.  They lie too much, simple as that.  

I can appreciate they have a job to do and it rarely has the worlds best interests at heart, but that doesn't mean I like it. 

Welp, your suspicions that the government (and scientists that are not affiliated with the government, and charities, and other organizations) are lying is your choice to believe.

I exist in a world based on evidence and reason. The evidence shows there's plenty of food. The evidence shows there's plenty of money. It's actually been pretty well researched and documented for many years now.

If you want to live in a world of tin-foil hats, that's your choice, but that largely marginalizes you from the discussion.

There's more than enough food. There's more than enough money. Hunger exists in the world because people in power won't let go of their agendas in order to help their fellow man - and yeah, this includes our own world leaders and often, our own citizens (including ourselves).

PS: I'm aware of what your verbatim quote stated. I'm also aware that you very much were wrong on the topic even with the disclaimer having been made, and that once shown you were reluctant to acknowledge it.

You also denied factual evidence presented to you from objective and credible sources.

You also made condescending remarks to me even as you told me I was wrong.

I admit that I harped on your asinine comment partially because you were a jerk to me. Here's a hint, the next time you want to be condescending and insulting, at least make sure you're right.

How does 'Don't believe everything you read.' come across as condescending?  And stop using big stupid words like 'asinine', 'verbatim', I could look it up but I'm not going to. 

Tin foil hat? 

You were nearly right with the people in power not letting go of their agenda.  Replace 'Agenda' with 'Money' then we can agree. 

I have no interest in agreeing with someone who is wrong, and who actively insists upon being so.

The rest of your post doesn't merit response.

I'd like to conduct a straw poll to determine the degree of scientific understanding of those who propose that climate change is a hoax.

How many of those who claim that the thesis that human activity significantly affects the climate is a hoax understand the following statement: "As a consequence of the infra-red absorption spectrum of carbon dioxide, the more carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere the less heat is lost from the Earth's surface into space by thermal radiation".

I will then compare the number who answer "yes" to the number of people who have made categorical statements denying climate change in this thread.

With regard to the capacity of the Earth to sustain a large population, one problem is the unsustainable nature of the current production model. Energy from fossil fuels are used to make fertiliser to increase yields from crops, for example. So without a replacement long term source of energy, much less food could be produced from a typical farm. The "two Earths" statement someone referred to above may well have been considering a sustainable model rather than the current unsustainable one.

To be fair, your statement is accurate, but misleading.

Humans are not the only things that create carbon dioxide. Animals, seizmik activity, radiation, fires, changes in the atmosphere over time and events, and many other factors also matter.

Just because there are people present now, and just because the number of people present is growing doesn't mean that humans are the only source of carbon dioxide, nor does it mean that our presence necessitates a rise in carbon dioxide levels compared to other times or environments.

You're asking "Do you understand this phrase?"

The incomplete answer is, "Yes, I understand this phrase."

But that's an incomplete answer to a misleading question. It's a logical fallacy and a straw man argument.

The complete answer to your question, "Yes, I understand this phrase, and it has absolutely no potency in proving that global warming is actually taking place."

I understand the statement. 

I believe if humanity did not exist then planet Earth would still be heating up.  Just like every planet in the solar system.  Why nobody is taking this into account is beyond me. 

When this cycle is over planet Earth will cool down.  When it does we'll be posting here about Global Freezing (with gloves on).

Is the climate is changing? YES....but then it always has been and always will.

Is the average global temperature is rising? YES....statistics support this fact.

Is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is rising? YES..again thanks to statistics and scientific measurement.

Is the rise in global temperature linked to the rise in CO2 in the atmoshere? Possibly but not proven.....all CO2 related theories to climate change are based on selectively released statistics with little scientific evidence. You don't hear the IPCC mention that the South Coast of the UK has until very recently been unable to grow grape vines because the climate was too cold, however grapes were grown successfully in NORTHERN England during the 17th and 18th Centuries because the climate was warmer. IPCC also fail to mention that the Antartic Ice Cap is actually growing, not receeding. Points made purely to identify that the IPCC does not present ALL the evidence but only selective evidence to back up it's theory.

Is the human population contributing to the increase in CO2 released into the atmoshere? Categorically YES by as a minimu burning fossil fuels

Is the primary cause of increased Greenhouse Gases in the atmoshere due to the use of fossil fuels? Possibly, however other contributors are naturally occuring such as animal "gases" (more greenhouse gases are produced by cattle than are produced by motor vehicles) and volcanic output (a single significant volcanic erruption can and has produced more Sulphur Dioxide than 3 years of European Industrial output at 2006 levels).

Are fossil fuels running out? Categorically YES.

The problem? There isn't enough sustainable energy resources for the global population (and specifically Industrial Europe, Asia and North America).

The solution? To reduce the global population or generate more money to research alternative sources? Reducing the global population is a political minefield - just ask the Chinese with their one family one child policy - so the only option is to raise revenues for energy research!

How do you raise the money required to develop new energy resources? Tax the population of Industrial Europe, Asia and North America to the hilt to pay for it under the moral disguise of saving the planet by scare mongering. If governments were honest and told us the real reasons for charging 70% tax on fuel, then maybe I would be happier to pay it!

Alternatively? Use up the fossil fuels there will be no more increase in CO2 emissions and the planet will be saved. In the time in takes to use up all the fossil fuels, a major war in the Middle East will reduce the global population and the act of warfare will increase the development of new energy resources. As a backup plan, failure to develop alternate energy resources will force the mass use of Nuclear Power Stations and so CO2 emissions will begin to fall and once more the world will be saved.....hoorah!

Problem solved :-)

All I ask is don't make me service some corrupt government's overdraft and pay for the development of new energy resouces to replace the ones that are running out when the obvious solution already exists.....Nuclear!

Now bring on the Eco-Warriors to shoot me down with sob stories about saving Polar Bears, feeding the starving and turning the planet into a radio active wasteland!