PLEASE READ!!!

***** ALL users will have to request a password reset BEFORE you will be able to log into the forum. See the thread in the forum issues section for further instructions. If you have issues with this, email us at admin@urbanohio.com. *****

Author Topic: Global Warming  (Read 14307 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2310 on: February 07, 2018, 12:11:50 PM »
Climate change was a widely accepted fact through the 1980s and 90s until Al Gore politicized it and the GOP decided to push back even stronger, in an oftentimes irrational way.

lol, no it wasn't.  People were still talking about (hell, they still do) that Time article from the 1970s about "global cooling" and how scientists don't know what they're talking about. 

Offline YABO713

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1814
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2311 on: February 07, 2018, 12:19:01 PM »
I mean environmental conservation was a large part of Conservatism from Teddy through roughly 1975-1985. When it began to conflate with a "liberal agenda" in the 1990s is when it became a counterculture of sorts to deny climate change

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2312 on: February 07, 2018, 12:23:53 PM »
I mean environmental conservation was a large part of Conservatism from Teddy through roughly 1975-1985. When it began to conflate with a "liberal agenda" in the 1990s is when it became a counterculture of sorts to deny climate change

It was always a liberal position.  I would suggest that the change came when environmental laws to clean up the land, air and water coincided with the general decline of the middle class and blue collar manufacturing jobs.  A lot of people blamed that decline on government regulations, including environmental.  Al Gore certainly was not the originator of that movement, and he doesn't deserve the conservative scapegoating he's gotten.  Nor is it particularly intelligent to ignore a serious issue just because liberals have been championing it. 

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7023
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2313 on: February 07, 2018, 12:25:43 PM »
We need to start with basic, real solutions that everyone can agree on.

There are plenty of basic, real solutions. Phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of bulbs that use 10% of the energy, or requiring automakers to reduce emissions. The beauty of mandating these things is that it allows companies to advance these green technologies without worrying about competition, because all the companies are required to do it.

It's been argued that even if we stopped all pollution today, it wouldn't help.

http://theconversation.com/what-would-happen-to-the-climate-if-we-stopped-emitting-greenhouse-gases-today-35011

I'm talking about solutions that are going to alleviate the realistic worst case scenarios. Storm damage, flooding, etc. Again, throwing out the argument for a moment about how much man made activity is responsible, it is irresponsible to not band together to prepare ourselves for hurricanes, protection of species, erosion and agricultural changes. Changing light bulbs may help. A little or a lot, we don't know. It doesn't directly address the impending harm.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5595
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2314 on: February 07, 2018, 12:28:18 PM »
We need to start with basic, real solutions that everyone can agree on.

There are plenty of basic, real solutions. Phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of bulbs that use 10% of the energy, or requiring automakers to reduce emissions. The beauty of mandating these things is that it allows companies to advance these green technologies without worrying about competition, because all the companies are required to do it.

The point of my earlier post is that these kinds of measures are tokenism, the camel edging his nose into the tent.  And the hardcore alarmists know that.  Once establishing the precedent that public policy to restrict individual freedom in the name of preventing climate change is a politically legitimate goal, they'll then miraculously discover that phasing out incandescent light bulbs or imposing car fuel economy standards didn't go nearly far enough.  They'll later discover--mirabile dictu!, we never thought we'd get to this point--that even completely eliminating gasoline- and diesel-powered surface vehicles didn't go anywhere near far enough, because the planet somehow kept right on warming while these token measures were taking effect.  So the only thing left to do will be the only thing that registers an order of magnitude greater on the carbon-saving scale--reducing the human population.  You can call me paranoid if you want for identifying that as the endgame, but the numbers are on my side.  Nothing else will actually reduce carbon as much as the hardcore alarmists want to reduce it.

Offline surfohio

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 7023
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2315 on: February 07, 2018, 12:31:17 PM »
The sandbar thing is called erosion, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with climate change.  Land, especially land as fragile as barrier islands, tends to erode over time just due to weather or tidal action.  It would happen without any sea level changes at all.  A single hurricane could wipe them off the map.  Look up Hog Island in New York as an example.  Using examples like this undermines actual consequences of climate change. 

The example was brought up as a worst case scenario; catastrophic or gradual events that people were unprepared for. Also as an example of people adapting. Since climate change is connected to sea level rise, there's essentially no difference in the worst case result.

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2316 on: February 07, 2018, 03:21:21 PM »
Strange, still not seeing any actual solutions being mentioned, only criticism of what's already been put out.  Thrown on top is the old "it doesn't matter what we do".  Glad to see everyone's taking it seriously. 

Offline YABO713

  • Burj Khalifa 2,722'
  • *****
  • Posts: 1814
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2317 on: February 07, 2018, 03:41:58 PM »
^We could start by importing chips for more energy-efficient and carbon free solar pan- ..... oh. Nvm.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6730
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2318 on: February 07, 2018, 04:18:46 PM »
So the green solution is to import solar equipment on oil powered ships from coal powered countries?  Making them here would be a lot less energy intensive.

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2319 on: February 07, 2018, 04:48:00 PM »
So the green solution is to import solar equipment on oil powered ships from coal powered countries?  Making them here would be a lot less energy intensive.

Getting the population to adopt green technologies will go much further than just building things in-house.  The US is either #1 or maybe #2 now in greenhouse gas emissions.  Building solar panels in the US makes them more expensive, which means lower adoption rates.  To counter that, the government would have the subsidize their manufacturing the way China does, but there is no way that the GOP would allow that to happen.  They're still busy trying to save coal.   

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2320 on: February 07, 2018, 04:55:09 PM »
Let the market decide how we go about it.

Offline 327

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 6730
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2321 on: February 07, 2018, 06:06:07 PM »
So the green solution is to import solar equipment on oil powered ships from coal powered countries?  Making them here would be a lot less energy intensive.

Getting the population to adopt green technologies will go much further than just building things in-house.  The US is either #1 or maybe #2 now in greenhouse gas emissions.  Building solar panels in the US makes them more expensive, which means lower adoption rates.  To counter that, the government would have the subsidize their manufacturing the way China does, but there is no way that the GOP would allow that to happen.  They're still busy trying to save coal.   

China is cheaper because they pay poorly and they burn coal like there's no tomorrow.  What we really need is for China to adopt solar.  Luckily they make cheap solar equipment right there, which means they won't have to burn additional fossil fuels moving stuff around.  The shortest distance between two points is usually the greenest.

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2322 on: February 07, 2018, 08:40:42 PM »
We also burn tons of coal.   Also, Im thinking income differences being what they are, its less likely the Chinese are going to have more success at adoption than we could.

Offline mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2323 on: February 07, 2018, 11:55:14 PM »
The point of my earlier post is that these kinds of measures are tokenism, the camel edging his nose into the tent.  And the hardcore alarmists know that.  Once establishing the precedent that public policy to restrict individual freedom in the name of preventing climate change is a politically legitimate goal, they'll then miraculously discover that phasing out incandescent light bulbs or imposing car fuel economy standards didn't go nearly far enough.  They'll later discover--mirabile dictu!, we never thought we'd get to this point--that even completely eliminating gasoline- and diesel-powered surface vehicles didn't go anywhere near far enough, because the planet somehow kept right on warming while these token measures were taking effect.  So the only thing left to do will be the only thing that registers an order of magnitude greater on the carbon-saving scale--reducing the human population.  You can call me paranoid if you want for identifying that as the endgame, but the numbers are on my side.  Nothing else will actually reduce carbon as much as the hardcore alarmists want to reduce it.

It's not actually tokenism, though. The grist article you posted refers to an individual changing his light bulbs vs. not having children... it doesn't refer to society changing all light bulbs vs. population controls. Individuals can't make a difference by changing their light bulbs voluntarily when most others won't choose to do it with them. It's the 'free rider problem' in economics. Societies, however, can make a difference by changing their light bulbs, if we agree that everyone has to do it. Taking machines that use 1 unit of energy and replacing them with machines that use 0.1 units of energy is exactly what we need to do to solve the problem, it's not tokenism.

Human machines cause climate change, not human bodies. If human governments, though mandates and/or incentives, changed the way society uses our machines, population is irrelevant. Is it too late for that? Possibly, due to decades of inaction. But the only reason population controls would be effective in our current society is because they would limit the use of the machines.

Your slippery slope argument is definitely paranoid - you're basically saying "light bulb mandates today, forced abortions tomorrow." If you are opposed to population control, you should be first in line to support light bulb mandates.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 08:23:14 AM by mu2010 »

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2324 on: February 08, 2018, 07:17:25 AM »
Scott Pruitt recently argued the global warming is actually a good thing.   When people like this are in power, were not going to find any solution, reasonable or not.

Offline AmrapinVA

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 141
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2325 on: February 08, 2018, 08:29:16 AM »
This thread moved into stupid territory a long time ago. There's a regular alarmist poster on this thread who posts a decent amount of misinformation on here. I called this guy out last year and pointed out one of his erroneous "facts" he received from one of his many Twitter sources. I could point out more but I just don't have the time to waste defending real data points because people on here want to believe some of the garbage he posts. If alarmists want to be taken seriously living in the world of facts would help. Same standard as deniers, right? I know you folks will run to the Donald example and I agree he's an idiot on this subject but that doesn't remove the fact there are equally idiotic posts on this board from someone who claims to understand the science but clearly does not.

Fix his sources if you want a serious discussion here. Great conversations based on actual facts are out there on this subject, just not here.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2018, 10:19:47 AM by AmrapinVA »

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 46647
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2326 on: February 12, 2018, 10:41:49 PM »
Just saw the post from the denialist. I am very sorry that you are having a hard time keeping up with all of the reality. If you can't handle information posted by people who disagree with you, then maybe you don't belong. Moving along....

Satellite observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

« Last Edit: February 12, 2018, 11:10:27 PM by KJP »
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the European banking dynasty.

Offline AmrapinVA

  • Metropolitan Tower 224'
  • *
  • Posts: 141
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2327 on: February 13, 2018, 08:13:13 AM »
Just saw the post from the denialist. I am very sorry that you are having a hard time keeping up with all of the reality. If you can't handle information posted by people who disagree with you, then maybe you don't belong. Moving along....

Satellite observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

Reality? Ken, I'm way too busy to call out our your Twitter BS sources. I already called you out once. I don't really care what your stance is, you don't check your sources and nobody here seems to care. That's a fact. I already made my point upthread anyway.

I'm not going to on the defensive when you can't tell fact from fiction. Sorry to disappoint you.

BTW, you amended your post, but you were correct, I am a miserable person. It started the first day I decided would cheer for the Browns.  ;D
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 08:30:01 AM by AmrapinVA »

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2328 on: February 13, 2018, 08:31:45 AM »
Just saw the post from the denialist. I am very sorry that you are having a hard time keeping up with all of the reality. If you can't handle information posted by people who disagree with you, then maybe you don't belong. Moving along....

Satellite observations show sea levels rising, and climate change is accelerating it
http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/12/world/sea-level-rise-accelerating/index.html

Reality? Ken, I'm way too busy to call out our your Twitter BS sources. I already called you out once. I don't really care what your stance is, you don't vet your sources and nobody here seems to care. That's a fact. I already made my point upthread anyway.

I'm not going to on the defensive when you can't tell fact from fiction. Sorry to disappoint you.

BTW, you amended your post, but you were correct, I am a miserable person. It started the first day I decided would cheer for the Browns.  ;D

My first question would be why you are using this forum alone to determine your stance on global warming.  My second would be why you are using one person on one forum to determine it.  My third would be as to what is left to discuss.  The consensus on this issue is overwhelming, as is the evidence.  You shouldn't need a single person to tell you anything if you were honestly invested in coming to a factual conclusion.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 46647
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2329 on: February 13, 2018, 08:33:44 AM »
You chose to make this personal. Just because you disagree with my postings won't stop the world from getting warmer. Someday, and hopefully soon, opposition to efforts to reduce global warming will result in criminal offenses and hopefully long prison sentences. Now run along....
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the European banking dynasty.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5595
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2330 on: February 13, 2018, 09:54:09 AM »
Quote
Just because you disagree with my postings won't stop the world from getting warmer.

True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 46647
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2331 on: February 13, 2018, 10:18:02 AM »

True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Says who? Self-interests? Or science? And yes, you listed only very small steps. A major redesign of how human society functions is necessary to stop our planet's demise. I suspect that massive depopulation (either by human or natural design) is the only way to save the Earth, because the science is falling on deaf ears of either the self-interested, those blinded and deafened by their interpretations of ancient religions, or those who do not know the profligate, suicidal history of humans. Humanity has repeatedly out-lived the carry capacity of its natural surroundings. Persia. North Africa. Greece. Rome. Maya. Cahokia. Western Europe. And for more than 40 years, the USA is exhausting its own domestic carrying capacity, requiring it to import more than it can produce. And more of the world is living consumerist, open-loop, net waste-producing lifestyles (among those net waste products being carbon), albeit not to the torrid extent of the good ol' USA.
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the European banking dynasty.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5595
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2332 on: February 13, 2018, 11:34:03 AM »

True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Says who? Self-interests? Or science? And yes, you listed only very small steps. A major redesign of how human society functions is necessary to stop our planet's demise. I suspect that massive depopulation (either by human or natural design) is the only way to save the Earth, because the science is falling on deaf ears of either the self-interested, those blinded and deafened by their interpretations of ancient religions, or those who do not know the profligate, suicidal history of humans. Humanity has repeatedly out-lived the carry capacity of its natural surroundings. Persia. North Africa. Greece. Rome. Maya. Cahokia. Western Europe. And for more than 40 years, the USA is exhausting its own domestic carrying capacity, requiring it to import more than it can produce. And more of the world is living consumerist, open-loop, net waste-producing lifestyles (among those net waste products being carbon), albeit not to the torrid extent of the good ol' USA.

At least you're honest about your evil endgame, if not about the delusions that fuel it.

Offline mu2010

  • One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • ****
  • Posts: 1123
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2333 on: February 13, 2018, 12:18:23 PM »
True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Why would reducing CO2 emissions not help a problem caused by CO2 emissions? This whole population control thing is based on accepting the following:

A)It's completely impossible for humans to change their fossil fuel habits,
B)Therefore, we must limit the population, and
C)It would be politically easier to install global population controls than it would be to install limitations on fossil fuel habits

So basically the idea is because people would never accept regulating how they drive (point A), we have to control the population instead (point B). But somehow the same people who would never accept regulation of their driving are going to just lie down and accept evil population controls (point C). Therefore, the only moral thing to do is throw our hands in the air and do nothing about climate change and anything else is evil. OK.

If we lived in walkable environments, ate local food, and had renewable energy, population does not matter. For what it's worth, I agree with you in that I do not accept controlling people's reproductive systems, however, massive global population decline seems to be coming anyways due to urbanization, so that will be interesting.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:20:37 PM by mu2010 »

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 46647
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2334 on: February 13, 2018, 12:44:13 PM »

At least you're honest about your evil endgame, if not about the delusions that fuel it.

LOL! How is reducing population evil? Because it runs counter to a prescription in a 1,500+ year old book edited by politicians? On that score, nature is evil because it has proven to be the greatest killer of human beings in recorded history. If my definition of nature is the same as your God, then by definition your God is evil too. And nature/God will continue killing us if we don't control our own population through more humane means including family planning and birth control. Global warming isn't up for debate. Nor is our ultimate reduction in carbon and other waste products. What is up for debate is how that is going to happen -- on our terms or on nature's/God's.

So what are we going to do about it? If nothing, then we deserve to die off. However, the many innocent species of this planet do not deserve our fate as a result of our hubris to think that this planet is ours to command. We merely rent this place, and have done so for but a fraction of its existence.

EDIT: see anything unsustainable in this graph?

« Last Edit: February 13, 2018, 12:47:23 PM by KJP »
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the European banking dynasty.

Online KJP

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 46647
  • Rebuilding the cities that built America.
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2335 on: February 14, 2018, 09:42:42 AM »
In article discussing the 3 views shared here in this thread: conservation, innovation or heedlessness....

Can Planet Earth Feed 10 Billion People?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/charles-mann-can-planet-earth-feed-10-billion-people/550928/
"Give me control of a nation's money supply, and I care not who writes the laws." -- Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the European banking dynasty.

Offline Gramarye

  • Global Moderator
  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 5595
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2336 on: February 14, 2018, 10:00:31 AM »
True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Why would reducing CO2 emissions not help a problem caused by CO2 emissions? This whole population control thing is based on accepting the following:

A)It's completely impossible for humans to change their fossil fuel habits,
B)Therefore, we must limit the population, and
C)It would be politically easier to install global population controls than it would be to install limitations on fossil fuel habits

I repeat, changing our fossil fuel habits will not be enough, and the hardcore alarmists know it.  All the talk about power plants and vehicles is just their way of establishing climate change as a crisis worth any cost to fight, and to build momentum for their real agenda.  That is the point of the Grist article, no matter how you try to avoid it.

There is a certain baseline, irreducible level of carbon inherent in any human being living a developed-world lifestyle, or even honestly a developing-world lifestyle.  Even if we eliminate every single power source other than solar, wind, and nuclear, and somehow make every single vehicle (even airplanes) electric, and force everyone to eat a vegetarian diet (meat is considerably more carbon-intensive than vegetable matter), carbon emissions will still rise as long as the human population continues to rise.  The rate of the rise might slow down a little, but it will not go negative.

Quote
If we lived in walkable environments, ate local food, and had renewable energy, population does not matter. For what it's worth, I agree with you in that I do not accept controlling people's reproductive systems, however, massive global population decline seems to be coming anyways due to urbanization, so that will be interesting.

Where do you see that?  Even the UN's own estimates I believe posit a human population of 11 billion by 2100.  Again, the rate of the rise might slow down but very few people are predicting that it will go negative.  And the UN's predictions don't generally take into account the nonzero possibility that we will make dramatic advances in healthy life extension technology over the next generation, advances that will allow those alive today (or at least our children) lifespans that were previously the stuff of science fiction and fantasy.  Centuries.  Money is quietly pouring into those lines of research--they're not considered laughingstocks anymore (see, e.g., Google's Calico).  If the world death rate plummeted, even without a serious uptick in the number of children per woman, we could easily break through the 11 billion mark well before current projections estimate, and keep on rising.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2337 on: February 14, 2018, 10:35:40 AM »
In article discussing the 3 views shared here in this thread: conservation, innovation or heedlessness....

Can Planet Earth Feed 10 Billion People?
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/charles-mann-can-planet-earth-feed-10-billion-people/550928/

Uh Yes, we will adapt. This overpopulation line is worn out. People have been complaining of this for hundreds of years yet, for the first time in our history, world hunger is not a major issue. We can grow enough food supply to feed the world. As we innovate we will continue to get better.

The overpopulation argument needs to stop because it assumes that people are not adaptable. These scare tactics do nothing for credibility.

Online jonoh81

  • Kettering Tower 408'
  • **
  • Posts: 327
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2338 on: February 14, 2018, 10:43:33 AM »
True.  But neither will changing light bulbs or even changing vehicle powertrains and/or dismantling coal power plants.

Why would reducing CO2 emissions not help a problem caused by CO2 emissions? This whole population control thing is based on accepting the following:

A)It's completely impossible for humans to change their fossil fuel habits,
B)Therefore, we must limit the population, and
C)It would be politically easier to install global population controls than it would be to install limitations on fossil fuel habits

I repeat, changing our fossil fuel habits will not be enough, and the hardcore alarmists know it.  All the talk about power plants and vehicles is just their way of establishing climate change as a crisis worth any cost to fight, and to build momentum for their real agenda.  That is the point of the Grist article, no matter how you try to avoid it.

There is a certain baseline, irreducible level of carbon inherent in any human being living a developed-world lifestyle, or even honestly a developing-world lifestyle.  Even if we eliminate every single power source other than solar, wind, and nuclear, and somehow make every single vehicle (even airplanes) electric, and force everyone to eat a vegetarian diet (meat is considerably more carbon-intensive than vegetable matter), carbon emissions will still rise as long as the human population continues to rise.  The rate of the rise might slow down a little, but it will not go negative.

Quote
If we lived in walkable environments, ate local food, and had renewable energy, population does not matter. For what it's worth, I agree with you in that I do not accept controlling people's reproductive systems, however, massive global population decline seems to be coming anyways due to urbanization, so that will be interesting.

Where do you see that?  Even the UN's own estimates I believe posit a human population of 11 billion by 2100.  Again, the rate of the rise might slow down but very few people are predicting that it will go negative.  And the UN's predictions don't generally take into account the nonzero possibility that we will make dramatic advances in healthy life extension technology over the next generation, advances that will allow those alive today (or at least our children) lifespans that were previously the stuff of science fiction and fantasy.  Centuries.  Money is quietly pouring into those lines of research--they're not considered laughingstocks anymore (see, e.g., Google's Calico).  If the world death rate plummeted, even without a serious uptick in the number of children per woman, we could easily break through the 11 billion mark well before current projections estimate, and keep on rising.

What's this hidden agenda again?  It is 2018, so it's hard to keep track of all the conspiracy theories.

Also, your solution is literally- we can't change anything, so let's just ride it out and hope for the best.   A problem that humans caused is too inevitable for humans to waste their time trying to alleviate, let alone solve. 

If aliens exist and visited our planet looking for intelligent life, they must've left bitterly disappointed.

Offline Brutus_buckeye

  • Jeddah Tower 3,281'
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
Re: Global Warming
« Reply #2339 on: February 14, 2018, 10:50:41 AM »
^ Fortunately for me, I am not going to lose any sleep over the issue of global warming.