Climate Change - Page 2 - OzChess

**cume** · 01-30-2009, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Try watching the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The evidence seems undeniable - our planet is changing.

I think that doco is overrated, hate scare tactics. I think even alot of Global Warming scientists agree but really I don't deny that the planet is changing I just deny that CO2 is changing it.

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions.

Agree with you but there is a problem. It seems like people in Africa and 3rd world countries are being pressured into using alternatives like solar energy which is basically telling them that they can't develop. You can't run proper industry and development on alternative energy at the moment. So there is also quite a substantial negative effect of trying to reduce emissions.

**AzzX** · 01-31-2009, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Like I said before I cannot stand this viewpoint on population. Previously you wrote..."The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous"

Previously, I disagreed with your claim and suggested that this was a Malthusian viewpoint. You now claim this is an 'observation'. Ok...so we are back at square one.

I said "It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general. An observation on reality if you will. Malthus's views on the foodchain are seriously flawed and categorising someone as having his views is a bit short-sighted.
Climate change IS a direct result on our expansive populous - It does not get any simpler than that. Leaving Australia you can observe the greater impact this has had on the environment. Population control is a touchy subject politically - maybe this is why it has not become priority in western culture.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

My view on the argument goes like this. 1 Billion peasants living a rural subsistence existence will create much less environmental problems then 1 Billion people living a high consumption lifestyle. And that is a well documented fact that has been talked about by environmentalists for years.

I have been to both Japan and Bangkok and witnessed otherwise. An example: 1 billion peasants would not have the capacity for a decent sewerage system to which the results are profoundly devastating on animal and plant life.

Overfishing, Ocean Dead zones, extinction of various species, modernising can only go so far before you run out of space. You can't pour a litre of water into a 500ml cup.

**Axiom** · 01-31-2009, 12:54 AM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Water vapour? Can you provide evidence of this?

In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:

* water vapor
* carbon dioxide
* methane
* nitrous oxide
* ozone
* CFCs

When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:

* water vapor, which contributes 36–70%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Axiom** · 01-31-2009, 01:05 AM

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

Al Gore and Venus Envy

**Just2Good** · 01-31-2009, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by cume

It seems like people in Africa and 3rd world countries are being pressured into using alternatives like solar energy which is basically telling them that they can't develop.

Why can't they develop by simply adopting the better energy solutions first, instead of using the dirty energy to 'industrialize', and then try to make the shift - which is harder?

Also, for countries like India/Pakistan/China/ and the continent of Africa, over population is their greatest impediment to economic success and industrial development.

**Firegoat7** · 01-31-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Also, for countries like India/Pakistan/China/ and the continent of Africa, over population is their greatest impediment to economic success and industrial development.

No no no no no

**Just2Good** · 01-31-2009, 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

No no no no no

It has to be. Their people are starving - in parts of Africa anyway, and they have no land left for agricultural use.

**Firegoat7** · 01-31-2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

It has to be. Their people are starving - in parts of Africa anyway, and they have no land left for agricultural use.

I cannot agree.
India and China are economic powerhouses. This is because they have very large populations! The complete opposite to what you suggested.

Pakistan is a military dictatorship that seems to be torn between traditional feudalism and modernity but its population is almost half the size of the USA even though it is quite large.

Africa is a continent. Interesting study, name the African country with the largest individual debt?

If you examine population statistics its quite clear that large populations do not necessarily mean lower living standards.

cheers,

**Just2Good** · 01-31-2009, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

I cannot agree.
India and China are economic powerhouses. This is because they have very large populations! The complete opposite to what you suggested.

Good point. But now contrast the GDP per capita between China and Switzerland (a western country picked at random because it has a small population).

Also, let us contrast the standard of living between the two. I think what we will find is that countries with lower population bases have a higher standard of living.

Africa is a continent. Interesting study, name the African country with the largest individual debt?

Zimbabwe?

**Firegoat7** · 01-31-2009, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]

Zimbabwe?

Read the economy section here.Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Firegoat7** · 01-31-2009, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

[font="Georgia"]Good point. But now contrast the GDP per capita between China and Switzerland (a western country picked at random because it has a small population).

Okay Population list
List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GDP list
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see really how these figures are connected with population. In my opinion we see developed industrial countries or petroleum driven economies dominating GDP. The Scandanavian economies seem to punch above their weight, which is interesting because historically they have been pursuing an intelligent type of western socialism.

I am not going to say that population has no affect on the environment. Clearly it does have some affect, but its not the most impotant factor in my opinion.
By the way GDP really has no bearing on measuring environmental problems.

cheers,

**cume** · 01-31-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Arragont-One

Why can't they develop by simply adopting the better energy solutions first, instead of using the dirty energy to 'industrialize', and then try to make the shift - which is harder?

Because the better energy solutions cost much more to run which equals no industry. Africa can't just hang around and wait, people need jobs now which means the industry must happen now and it can't happen now using these environmentally sound solutions.

**Jaz** · 02-01-2009, 08:19 AM

Back to climate change, earth in fact seems to be changing very rapidly. I don't have to be a scientist, conspiracy theory believer or Al Gore's supporter for that. Look what's going around you, extreme weather patterns, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.

The problem is that there is no consensus whether we are experiencing a global warming or global cooling and if its due to human activity. The majority of scientists are saying one thing and the politicians are saying the other.

**Just2Good** · 02-01-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Read the economy section here.

Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Done, from the pictures seems like a nice place.

Originally Posted by Firegoat7

Okay Population list

List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GDP list

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be more interested in seeing the list re-ordered from highest GDP to lowest.

I don't see really how these figures are connected with population. In my opinion we see developed industrial countries or petroleum driven economies dominating GDP. The Scandanavian economies seem to punch above their weight, which is interesting because historically they have been pursuing an intelligent type of western socialism.

Agreed!

By the way GDP really has no bearing on measuring environmental problems.

True, but it may have some bearing on a country's ability to solve environmental problems.

Originally Posted by cume

Africa can't just hang around and wait, people need jobs now which means the industry must happen now and it can't happen now using these environmentally sound solutions.

Perhaps.

Originally Posted by Jaz

Look what's going around you, extreme weather patterns, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc.

The problem is that there is no consensus whether we are experiencing a global warming or global cooling and if its due to human activity.

Agreed - but most of the scientists are saying these changes are due to man-made green house gases being placed in the atmosphere.

**Jaz** · 02-01-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Arrogant-One

Agreed - but most of the scientists are saying these changes are due to man-made green house gases being placed in the atmosphere.

Actually more and more scientist confirm now that it is not man-made at all. They say that the whole solar system is warming up and there is global warming on all the planets around our sun.

In a sense we have to protect our planet, but it is also cool to think that we have no or very little power over mother nature.

01-30-2009, 10:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
cume Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New South Wales Posts: 94	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Try watching the documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth'. The evidence seems undeniable - our planet is changing. I think that doco is overrated, hate scare tactics. I think even alot of Global Warming scientists agree but really I don't deny that the planet is changing I just deny that CO2 is changing it. Originally Posted by Arrogant-One So even if climate change is not primarily caused by CO2 emissions, there is still an incentive to do something to reduce such emissions. Agree with you but there is a problem. It seems like people in Africa and 3rd world countries are being pressured into using alternatives like solar energy which is basically telling them that they can't develop. You can't run proper industry and development on alternative energy at the moment. So there is also quite a substantial negative effect of trying to reduce emissions.

01-31-2009, 12:16 AM	#17 (permalink)
AzzX Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 109	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Like I said before I cannot stand this viewpoint on population. Previously you wrote..."The current climate change crisis is a direct result on our expansive populous" Previously, I disagreed with your claim and suggested that this was a Malthusian viewpoint. You now claim this is an 'observation'. Ok...so we are back at square one. I said "It's not a view - merely an observation of this affect in nature in general. An observation on reality if you will. Malthus's views on the foodchain are seriously flawed and categorising someone as having his views is a bit short-sighted. Climate change IS a direct result on our expansive populous - It does not get any simpler than that. Leaving Australia you can observe the greater impact this has had on the environment. Population control is a touchy subject politically - maybe this is why it has not become priority in western culture. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 My view on the argument goes like this. 1 Billion peasants living a rural subsistence existence will create much less environmental problems then 1 Billion people living a high consumption lifestyle. And that is a well documented fact that has been talked about by environmentalists for years. I have been to both Japan and Bangkok and witnessed otherwise. An example: 1 billion peasants would not have the capacity for a decent sewerage system to which the results are profoundly devastating on animal and plant life. Overfishing, Ocean Dead zones, extinction of various species, modernising can only go so far before you run out of space. You can't pour a litre of water into a 500ml cup. __________________ azzx.org ozsource

01-31-2009, 12:54 AM	#18 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Water vapour? Can you provide evidence of this? In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are: * water vapor * carbon dioxide * methane * nitrous oxide * ozone * CFCs When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: * water vapor, which contributes 36–70% * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26% Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

01-31-2009, 01:05 AM	#19 (permalink)
Axiom Reality Analyst Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 3,498	www.prisonplanet.com The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam Al Gore and Venus Envy

01-31-2009, 02:26 PM	#20 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by cume It seems like people in Africa and 3rd world countries are being pressured into using alternatives like solar energy which is basically telling them that they can't develop. Why can't they develop by simply adopting the better energy solutions first, instead of using the dirty energy to 'industrialize', and then try to make the shift - which is harder? Also, for countries like India/Pakistan/China/ and the continent of Africa, over population is their greatest impediment to economic success and industrial development. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-31-2009, 07:06 PM	#21 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Also, for countries like India/Pakistan/China/ and the continent of Africa, over population is their greatest impediment to economic success and industrial development. No no no no no __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-31-2009, 07:44 PM	#22 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 No no no no no It has to be. Their people are starving - in parts of Africa anyway, and they have no land left for agricultural use. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-31-2009, 09:22 PM	#23 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One It has to be. Their people are starving - in parts of Africa anyway, and they have no land left for agricultural use. I cannot agree. India and China are economic powerhouses. This is because they have very large populations! The complete opposite to what you suggested. Pakistan is a military dictatorship that seems to be torn between traditional feudalism and modernity but its population is almost half the size of the USA even though it is quite large. Africa is a continent. Interesting study, name the African country with the largest individual debt? If you examine population statistics its quite clear that large populations do not necessarily mean lower living standards. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-31-2009, 09:32 PM	#24 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 I cannot agree. India and China are economic powerhouses. This is because they have very large populations! The complete opposite to what you suggested. Good point. But now contrast the GDP per capita between China and Switzerland (a western country picked at random because it has a small population). Also, let us contrast the standard of living between the two. I think what we will find is that countries with lower population bases have a higher standard of living. Africa is a continent. Interesting study, name the African country with the largest individual debt? Zimbabwe? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

01-31-2009, 09:43 PM	#25 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One [font="Georgia"] Zimbabwe? Read the economy section here.Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-31-2009, 09:59 PM	#26 (permalink)
Firegoat7 Moderator Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Getting owned by White in the Dragon and trying to recover lost positions from shock paralysis OTB Posts: 1,924 ICC Handle: guest	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One [font="Georgia"]Good point. But now contrast the GDP per capita between China and Switzerland (a western country picked at random because it has a small population). Okay Population list List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GDP list List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I don't see really how these figures are connected with population. In my opinion we see developed industrial countries or petroleum driven economies dominating GDP. The Scandanavian economies seem to punch above their weight, which is interesting because historically they have been pursuing an intelligent type of western socialism. I am not going to say that population has no affect on the environment. Clearly it does have some affect, but its not the most impotant factor in my opinion. By the way GDP really has no bearing on measuring environmental problems. cheers, __________________ "...What I meant? Dear Mr Ian Rout (ACF news publisher) could you please put Ozchessforum in the next news letter! There is no reason to hide this forum from the Australian chess public. What they meant? Sorry, No english!- Amir Karibasic

01-31-2009, 10:03 PM	#27 (permalink)
cume Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New South Wales Posts: 94	Originally Posted by Arragont-One Why can't they develop by simply adopting the better energy solutions first, instead of using the dirty energy to 'industrialize', and then try to make the shift - which is harder? Because the better energy solutions cost much more to run which equals no industry. Africa can't just hang around and wait, people need jobs now which means the industry must happen now and it can't happen now using these environmentally sound solutions.

02-01-2009, 08:19 AM	#28 (permalink)
Jaz Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 87	Back to climate change, earth in fact seems to be changing very rapidly. I don't have to be a scientist, conspiracy theory believer or Al Gore's supporter for that. Look what's going around you, extreme weather patterns, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. The problem is that there is no consensus whether we are experiencing a global warming or global cooling and if its due to human activity. The majority of scientists are saying one thing and the politicians are saying the other.

02-01-2009, 02:08 PM	#29 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Read the economy section here. Seychelles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Done, from the pictures seems like a nice place. Originally Posted by Firegoat7 Okay Population list List of countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia GDP list List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I'd be more interested in seeing the list re-ordered from highest GDP to lowest. I don't see really how these figures are connected with population. In my opinion we see developed industrial countries or petroleum driven economies dominating GDP. The Scandanavian economies seem to punch above their weight, which is interesting because historically they have been pursuing an intelligent type of western socialism. Agreed! By the way GDP really has no bearing on measuring environmental problems. True, but it may have some bearing on a country's ability to solve environmental problems. Originally Posted by cume Africa can't just hang around and wait, people need jobs now which means the industry must happen now and it can't happen now using these environmentally sound solutions. Perhaps. Originally Posted by Jaz Look what's going around you, extreme weather patterns, hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis etc. The problem is that there is no consensus whether we are experiencing a global warming or global cooling and if its due to human activity. Agreed - but most of the scientists are saying these changes are due to man-made green house gases being placed in the atmosphere. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

02-01-2009, 03:34 PM	#30 (permalink)
Jaz Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 87	Originally Posted by Arrogant-One Agreed - but most of the scientists are saying these changes are due to man-made green house gases being placed in the atmosphere. Actually more and more scientist confirm now that it is not man-made at all. They say that the whole solar system is warming up and there is global warming on all the planets around our sun. In a sense we have to protect our planet, but it is also cool to think that we have no or very little power over mother nature.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: