No, science and scientists drives the climate change theory and pretty much every one of em that has spent years independently studying the subject agrees that man has had a huge influence on the global environment.
Well our carbon footprint, fridges, deodorants and 4x4's had fuck all to do with the previous ice ages and warm periods so I will stick entirely with my theory that the Earth's weather patterns are a natural cycle and there is nothing we can do about it other than allow governments to blame us and tax us of course.
Fazakerly.The Earth's natural weather shifts occur over thousands of years, (17000 years since the last ice age?) the current climate shift is over 300 years ( start of industrial revolution).
That's pretty short-term thinking. And what about 2 degrees warmer 50 years after that? And another 2 degrees soon after that? Well we know what would happen. Certain areas of the world would become uninhabitable unless you were good on stilts. And given that some of these areas are places where people already live, it's probably desirable that it doesn't happen.
Yes the climate has always changed, but usually at a pace that allows animals to evolve to deal with it. But at the moment, it's changing a lot faster than evolution takes. As for more crops, I think you'll find that any new areas for growing crops will be more than made up for by areas turned to desert.
British people in particular should be all for this. Regardless of the facts, with the right investment, Britain would be to renewable energy what Saudi Arabia is to oil. We're a windy, rainy, tidal island. We could easily be a world leader in all of those technologies.
And tackling it would be the most effective means of addressing any putative man-made climate change.Bang on. I find it totally pointless agreeing/disagreeing with global warming theory, without addressing
this fundamental truth.
Yes. Why wouldn't I be? Although it's not as low-carbon as it's often claimed.Right now, low-carbon energy means NUCLEAR. Happy to go down that route?
Yes. Why wouldn't I be? Although it's not as low-carbon as it's often claimed.
Yeah I don't see too many governments having the strength to implement it as a compulsory process, however what's to stop people having their 2.5 and then opting for it? I mean, I have 2 kids now and I'm in my early thirties, by the time the youngest is in college I'll be late forties, so if I was offered a nice pay off to get snipped now I would probably take it.
I agree, only those households earning $100k per year get to have babies.Without trying to sound elitist or like a snob, this is for people at the lower end of the class system. We need to make it more financially viable for them to not have kids, than have them.
This would be a world wide project and would stop more being born in poverty.
I understand it's borderline immoral but the consequences of not stopping overpopulation will be a lot lot crueler and the issue cleary is much worse with those less fortunate.