Climate change and overpopulation

[Deleted member 76176]

Mankind numbers 8 billion people worldwide. The most populated nation in the world is China, with upwards of 1.4 billion people. China is 3rd largest nation. There is a population density map of China below. If we put over an eighth of the world population in a small part of the third largest nation in the world and have plenty of room to spare, then earth has room and to spareView attachment 19261

The problem here is that our resources are finite. To make those places habitable, we would have to destroy the existing ecosystem and cause a huge environmental impact. Furthermore, this is not just a today concern, but for the future as well.
The demographic will change over decades, centuries, and it cannot be solved instantly. Doing it would be detrimental, as China's example shows, but we need more awareness and acknowledgment on the topic. So that people don't randomly blame things on overpopulation or support policies that are harmful.

If you are looking for someone who spends a lot of time exposing the climate hoax i would refer you to Tony Heller.

Real Climate Science | "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." — Richard Feynman

realclimatescience.com

Pretty much all these societal problems and their social awareness comes from propoganda.

The real problems don't get the same traction manufactured ones do.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ eh

 

[ElijahRyne]

I'll say it again: I don't want to hear that billionaires are evil or that they are advocating it for their own agendas and stuff. That's not part of my speech; I may keep a small segment on it l, though.
Regarding the most of what you wrote, I can refute that straight away, but I first want to study related papers on Siberian permafrost to make sure I'm not getting it wrong.

Well it isn’t just billionaires, but the system that created them. Billionaires are more like the symptoms of a disease instead of the disease itself. If a system where people can exploit eachother for wealth is being used, then just that will happen. Removing billionaires will do nothing if we don’t first tackle the systems that create and give them power, unless you want to play wack-a-mole. Even then, taking down billionaires will still leave oil companies and their share holders, will still leave the fact that concrete, the most popular building material, is awful for global warming, will still leave people needlessly starving, etc. If we want change we must address the material conditions of the people affected, the systems that got us here, how we can implement change, and what that change means for us.

 

[AzureFeather]

If the former gets bad enough, it'll solve the latter.
If the latter gets bad enough, it'll solve itself. Violently.

Bit of a joke take.

More seriously (Editing my comment because I'm idiot with the short term memory of a goldfish); I think the widest misconception is that there is a simple fix, that can be found along the lines of 'if we all do this' or 'if they stopped doing that', or going further 'we just need (this/these) x regulation(s) added/removed'.

Honestly speaking, there's not gonna be a simple solution that can be implemented smoothly. Even if, say, a cheap alternative to energy production that miraculously doesn't have any byproducts and can be mass reproduced on near any scale is found, just the infrastructure changes alone will make people leery, spawn conspiracy theories, and take years- and it's not like energy is the only source of issues for both those problems.

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ eh

If that's enough to get you to dismiss someone then you aren't actually interested in challenging the mainstream narrative. I thought you were interested in opposing arguments/views, sorry.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

Climate - The main debate is whether humans have a large impact.

1. Always changing.
2. Doesn't matter whether you use the creationist or evolutionary history model of the Earth, there are both recent and historical changes. Pre-historic earth was far different than Earth is now if you go by the old earth model, and that was before mankind did anything.
3. The average person doesn't have the ability to measure atmospheric CO2, so most measurements are done by biased organizations who want to promote the idea that mankind is doing it.
4. If we look at NASA satellite images, there are more greening in areas that put out more CO2.
5. I personally think it's stupid to think we can change the climate simply by not breathing.

Overpopulation
1. There is still enough food for everyone.
2. They are currently trying to make food more scarce.
3. I doubt we're close to being overpopulated, but there are elites who want you to think we are so they can have more control over us.

That is all.

The problem here is that our resources are finite. To make those places habitable, we would have to destroy the existing ecosystem and cause a huge environmental impact. Furthermore, this is not just a today concern, but for the future as well.
The demographic will change over decades, centuries, and it cannot be solved instantly. Doing it would be detrimental, as China's example shows, but we need more awareness and acknowledgment on the topic. So that people don't randomly blame things on overpopulation or support policies that are harmful.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ eh

1. China is going towards a population crash, and it's not due to lack of food or resources. It's because of their 1 child policy.
2. The problem with "bias" checks is that the sites that do these are also biased themselves. Probably better to look at the argument than trumpet what someone else is saying or posting, but that requires critical thinking which isn't taught in school anymore.

 

[Daitengu]

I'd say one of the most damning things that hurts global warming deniers is the fact that you can pull up recordings of a certain oil CEO talking about actively funding global warming denial. As well as both Exxon and BP/Shell CEOs being pulled before congress for covering up global warming.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I'd say one of the most damning things that hurts global warming deniers is the fact that you can pull up recordings of a certain oil CEO talking about actively funding global warming denial. As well as both Exxon and BP/Shell CEOs being pulled before congress for covering up global warming.

You can also pull up the same on the other side, people actively funding climate alarmism. Just because people are funding something doesn't automatically make it incorrect.

 

[Deleted member 76176]

If that's enough to get you to dismiss someone then you aren't actually interested in challenging the mainstream narrative. I thought you were interested in opposing arguments/views, sorry.

I don't have an opinion on her yet, as I'm currently reading what she has to say. Though it is not a good sign, kind of. The MBFC themselves are biased and unreliable, but they give a decent enough idea of what I'm getting into.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I'm just waiting for moderators to lock this thread.

Climate is kind of a religion at this point.

 

[melchi]

I'd say one of the most damning things that hurts global warming deniers is the fact that you can pull up recordings of a certain oil CEO talking about actively funding global warming denial. As well as both Exxon and BP/Shell CEOs being pulled before congress for covering up global warming.

This is a really weak argument. On the flip side, Al Gore was poised to make billions (and did) off of green energy investments that he made right before his award winning documentary was released. Does that have anything to do with global warming?

 

[Deleted member 54065]

How dare you?

-Greta T.

 

[Deleted member 1244]

I am confused, how is climate change related to overpopulation?

Or are there two ongoing things in this thread

 

[AnonUnlimited]

How dare you?

-Greta T.

She also said we only have 5 years left in 2017. I guess she was wrong.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

She also said we only have 5 years left in 2017. I guess she was wrong.

How dare you, dare her daring me?

-Hans T.

Seriously though, I won't speak much. I didn't read enough stuff on climate change that I won't be able to form an informed opinion on related matters.

All I can say is Greta's theatrics are funny.

 

[Deleted member 113259]

All I can say is Greta's theatrics are funny.

Laughed really hard when she pretended to get arrested.
What a peculiar character.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

Laughed really hard when she pretended to get arrested.
What a peculiar character.

Lots of peculiar characters in international scenes nowadays...

From an American President wishing God to save a dead queen, not the king, to basketball players playing with toy guns trying to look cool. (And acting sheepish after he got suspended)

I love clowns. ?

 

[AnonUnlimited]

@Reinaislost anyway, you shouldn't put any of our disagreements in your speech. This isn't a place for homework help anyway.

Go with the mainstream idea that man is causing climate change and overpopulation is bad.
Reason is

1. You are probably doing this for school, don't rock the boat at school. Your professors will likely mark you down on grades if you go against the mainstream.

2. You're there to get a grade, not really anything else.

3. Pass the class, most of us who know society also know not to argue with someone who can control our future based on our academic grade. Knowing the truth sometimes is a burden, so forget about it and just focus on passing your speech class or whatever.

Good luck.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

Climate Change:
I just remember that ages ago I saw a guy pull out a chart and basically say, "in nature, shit takes a long time or a short time only by human perspective. So, in short, we are still technically still in an ice age. We'll mellow out in 300~500 more years. Then we can bitch about it."

Overpopulation:
There is so many nitpicky areas to discuss I'm not sure if anyone has a solid base as to what the argument for/against overpopulation even is about. Have fun.

 

[SternenklarenRitter]

While it is true that overpopulation can make every problem worse, global population growth has been quite low lately, currently at roughly 1% a year. Best estimates indicate growth will likely continue to decline before leveling off at or slightly below replacement by the end of this century. Already, population growth has become more linear than exponential. Because of these trends, many demographers consider overpopulation a problem likely to go away on its own.
In terms of climate change, an understated aspect is ocean acidification. To date, nearly half of emitted CO2 from burning fossil fuels has dissolved into the oceans, forming carbonic acid. This process currently absorbs about 40% of CO2 emissions while lowering the pH of the oceans, but this absorption quickly slows down as pH falls. Ocean pH has depressed from 8.15 to 8.05 since 1950, which seems like a small amount at first glance. However, this is enough to change the absorption rate from about 50% in 1950. Going forward, each ton of carbon emissions will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations more than the last ton. Additionally, CO2 is far more soluble in cold water than warm water, so as climate change warms the ocean surface, the amount of CO2 the ocean can absorb will decrease very rapidly. At about 2*C of warming, the rate at which emitted CO2 is absorbed into the ocean will drop close to zero.

 

[Daitengu]

This is a really weak argument. On the flip side, Al Gore was poised to make billions (and did) off of green energy investments that he made right before his award winning documentary was released. Does that have anything to do with global warming?

Ah, you haven't seen the videos about it, nor heard the audio. He basically admitted to being the person behind several scientists and groups who publicly deny global warming.