A101 wrote:No, I am not blaming over population just highlighting the hypocrisy of the so-called climate emergency to the biggest obstacle in reducing global emissions.
Not blaming it, but yet calling it the biggest cause. It isn't. But even if it was, it isn't something we can fix, it is a given. So, it isn't hypocrisy, it is an excuse not to do anything.
Dutchy wrote:LOL, seems you cannot look at you own posts intelligently, one you are saying that child births are steady for the last 22 years in this century, but at the same time acknowledge that the worlds population is increasing to 10/11 billion its either one or the other it cannot be both.
Instead of doing another ad hominem, perhaps you can show us that the best statistician are wrong and you are right. Just look at the link I provided from the talk of Hans Rosling. Or don't and be ignorant and continue to make wrong statements like this.
Dutchy wrote:Basing your opinions on facts is better than being ignorant, Hans Rosling, many pro-conceived ideas, which aren't true. Perhaps you care to watch it, too educate yourself a bit.
Only person here being ignorant is you if you cannot see what you are writing and looking at it logically
In 2021, the crude death rate for the world is 7.64 deaths per thousand population, and the crude birth rate for the world is 17.76 births per thousand.
Births are running at 133% more than the worlds deaths rate those are the facts
https://statisticstimes.com/demographic ... h-rate.php[/quote]
The obvious answer, the world's population is young, so generation sizes are becoming bigger, the population pyramid is changing. It is an excellent example of how one can be fooled into thinking in one direction, convinced of being right, instead of thinking it through. Causal or correlation relationship. This just shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening.
Dutchy wrote:A101 wrote:That’s predicted for around the year 2100 bit late for the so called “climate emergency”
Correct, so that's why it is just an excuse not to do anything about the very real climate emergency.
So, what do you do to tackle the elephant in the room?
Increase the worlds population increase the human carbon emissions, not rocket science [/quote]
South Sudan had the fastest population growth:
5,05%, CO2 emmisions:
0,2ton per capita. One flight from London to Sydney;
6.1 t. The average Australian:
15,5t. So 77,5 times as much.
The argument is a deflection to not do anything.
A101 wrote:Are you claiming that my international travel does not contribute to the internal revenue of the nations I go too which contributes to foreign aid?
Your flight from Australia to London will admit 6,1ton of carbon, roughly 30 times what a South Sudanese admits in a year. So not taking such a long flight is by far more effective than having the government spend whatever low contribution your flight makes to the treasury. And flights have all kinds of negative economic effects on countries which are paid by the treasury anyway. So your flight hasn't been paid for in full. So yeah, taking a flight will not contribute to the internal revenue of a nation. I bet this answer surprises you because it looks a bit further than, paying for a ticket, and an airline pays a small amount of taxes (not being VAT or excise duty of course).
A101 wrote:Chernobyl is the best advertisement of massively reduced human interference to help the ecosystems recover from man made disasters.
So, either you are saying the so-called climate emergency is a load of rubbish or you are saying the ecosystems cannot recover, which is it?
And that is again a narrowminded false dilemma. Not admitting all kinds of greenhouse gasses will help to sustain life on earth and might help to avoid the 6th mass extinction event. I am talking about a global-scale event, you obviously talking about a local event. That's the difference. Not having human interference on the South Pole will not help the ecosystem, because there is none, directly.
A101 wrote:The predictions are of what they think might happen in the future, ie scaremongering
So, predicting the weather for tomorrow, that it is a sunny day, with a light breeze is scaremongering? My mind is blown.
At the end of the say, one is in denial and mostly because realizing it will lead to a change in behavior and some just don't want that.