The Current This woman won't have children because of climate change. She says she's not alone

Tai Hai Chen wrote:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-24-2019-1.5107820/this-woman-won-t-have-children-because-of-climate-change-she-says-she-s-not-alone-1.5109015

Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew

Wake wrote:

Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew

In plain English: There IS NO CLIMATE CHANGE. You can't call it a hoax because that would infer it was a joke of some sort - it is a criminal enterprise of the environmentalists that have since the early 20's been attempting to have a reason to reduce the world's population.

Every year since the 60's we have had announcements that the world is ending in 10 years if we don't give the government all of our money right now.

I suggest you https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReLBceVMFmk

Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Thank you for your YouTube suggestion, but equally I could direct you to web sites that 'prove' that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. If you can't debate within the subject of the thread, and do so with respect (i.e. actually read peoples posts) then I have no more to say to you.

Wake wrote:

Skiday wrote:
Oh well, if you put 'there is no climate change' in all capital letters then it MUST be true! LOL. If you were to actually read what I wrote then you will see that at no point did I declare that there is climate change or not. My only real statement is that the Earth and all life on it will one day end - which it will. If you want to debate whether climate change is real or not then I'm sure there are other threads, but this thread is about people's decision to not have children.

Thank you for your YouTube suggestion, but equally I could direct you to web sites that 'prove' that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. If you can't debate within the subject of the thread, and do so with respect (i.e. actually read peoples posts) then I have no more to say to you.

So the comparison of NASA's claimed temperature record and that reported in the newspapers in the area being different is the same as Flat Earthists? Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.

Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.

Skiday wrote:

Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.

No we don't. Unless you'd like to discuss anything I wrote about in my original comment.

If I were to have an opinion on climate change, not having time to study all the evidence on either side, I might be tempted to be influenced by someone who has, like Sir David Attenborough rather than perhaps the most famous denier, Donald Trump, who has allegedly never even read a book - any book, and certainly not anonymous posters on web forums who 'gaslight' other contributors.

This is clearly not a forum for considered and respectful discussion so I shall say no more and leave.

dehammer wrote:
No, he is right, this is the kiddie pool and your it. Enjoy.

Trolls love to run real people away from places where they should be able to have adult discussion, and its sad to see people like you win, but there is no defeating a troll such as yourself.

Skiday wrote:

Wake wrote:
Well I don't think that we need to discuss anything anymore.

No we don't. Unless you'd like to discuss anything I wrote about in my original comment.

If I were to have an opinion on climate change, not having time to study all the evidence on either side, I might be tempted to be influenced by someone who has, like Sir David Attenborough rather than perhaps the most famous denier, Donald Trump, who has allegedly never even read a book - any book, and certainly not anonymous posters on web forums who 'gaslight' other contributors.

This is clearly not a forum for considered and respectful discussion so I shall say no more and leave.

dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.

Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew

Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:
You think because you know the words "laws of thermodynamics" that people give anything you say any weight. Go back to school kid. You can still graduate 3rd grade.

Nightmare and I agree on almost nothing.

Wake wrote:
What we do agree upon is that the climate change nuts know nothing.

Wake wrote:
What credentials do you have to understand anything that has to do with the fake climate change?

Wake wrote:
The people that speak the loudest always seem to have gotten their education on climate change from an article in Popular Science written by an author who got his from an article in Ladies Home Journal.

Wake wrote:
And inevitably they throw around the terms like "Scientists say" or "scientists agree" when they do nothing of the sort.

Wake wrote:
Less that 20% of scientists happen to believe in climate change and those are people whose livelihood depends upon government grants.

Wake wrote:
When the actual things that NASA has been reporting is shown to be the exact opposite by daily weather reports in the areas under discussion

Wake wrote:
and when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

James___ wrote:

Skiday wrote:
As a 58 year old without children I find this interesting (not for ecological reasons, it's just how life worked out for me). I saw another woman from the London protests being interviewed saying she would not have children 'until climate change is resolved'. Of course there will likely be a point in time, as her biological clock ticks away, when she will be able to justify that the situation has changed, or perhaps she will forget that promise (purely my own conjecture), as the desire to have children is often more powerful than rationality. I suspect that the lady in the article referred may also one day be less resolute about her convictions as she ages. It doesn't matter what else you do to reduce your carbon footprint, the very worst thing you can do is have children. Your children may become eco-warriors, but then they may become 'frequent flyers' working in the oil industry - you just don't know.

Interestingly, a gentleman on the radio in his seventies was saying the climate disaster won't affect him as he will be dead by the time the cliff-edge arrives, but he fears for his grandchild. I'm thinking that if he hadn't had children then would that have been better? It would certainly have been better for the planet. As the youngest of 4 I believe my parents should have stopped a 2 and I should not have been born. I'm glad I was, but I wouldn't have minded if I weren't obviously.

At some point in time the human race will die out. The sun will burn out and take the Earth with it. If you believe we will develop transport faster than light, or 'warp-speed' then I think that is wishful thinking. If the human race lasts another 1000 years, 10,000 years, or 10 million years, why does it matter to anyone who is not alive today? Is your grandchild more important then your great great X100 grandchild, and if so why? I think that if the human race dies out in 100 years rather than 10 million years it will be much better for the planet, at least the planet and its wildlife will go on.

Andrew

Andrew,
Overpopulation might be the biggest issue facing our planet.

James___ wrote:
Civilization requires resources and on our planet, those are limited.

James___ wrote:
At the same time there is Natural Climate Variation which isn't understood. Without knowing that, we can't know how we're influencing our planet except in obvious ways. Like if a forest is burned to increase farming. The amount of CO2 being converted into oxygen will decrease while agricultural production goes up. Stuff like that.
From what scientists say and this includes those at the IPCC, global warming will have a minimum impact on the southern hemisphere.

James___ wrote:
This for some reason always gets ignored.

James___ wrote:
Most of climate change is in the northern hemisphere.

James___ wrote:
As this forum shows like anything else, it's more of an emotional argument.

dehammer wrote:

Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.

dehammer wrote:
You guys do not get it. That is my argument. They say the emission is doing so, but they do not use a cheap method of lowering emissions when its available.

dehammer wrote:
You guys do not get it. That is my argument. They say the emission is doing so, but they do not use a cheap method of lowering emissions when its available.

dehammer wrote:

Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.

dehammer wrote:
Yea, its a magic thing called gravity. Babies learn what it is when they throw things and see it hit the floor.

Wake wrote:

dehammer wrote:

Wake wrote:
... when the satellite data that shows no warming since the satellites were put in orbit 40 years ago are denied by people like you, you look like what you are - nothing more than another tool of the left.

Sorry, but you just showed your ignorance. I do not believe in mmcc. I try to get someone that believes in it to explain if it is so dangerous, why they do not use a proven technology to stop it instead of demanding the government tax Americans into poverty to send our tax dollars to corrupt dictators who will as likely use the money to build weapons to attack us as anything else.

Instead what I get is tools of the socialist trying to claim anything other than taxing the poor will do nothing but .... You guys never did explain what it would do to lower co2 emissions.

If you don't mind answering a question. I know spectrometry very well.

Wake wrote:
So I know that CO2 only absorbs energy in three very narrow bands in an area that has so little energy that only a very small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs the entire amount.

Wake wrote:
This means that after some 180-200 ppm there is longer any more energy for CO2 to interact with. What's more, ALL this does is turn some radiant energy into conductive energy -

Wake wrote:
while this indeed slows the transfer from the Earth's surface back into outer space,

Wake wrote:
any additional CO2 has the very same effect as O2 and N2.

Wake wrote:
What all this means is that a while a very small amount of energy is changed into a slower moving form

Wake wrote:
and consequently the mean global temperature is microscopically increased,

Wake wrote:
it is so small as to be ignorable.

Wake wrote:
What's more - since higher amounts of CO2 cause more rapid conduction due to the lower latent heat content of CO2 - it probably more than cancels out.

Wake wrote:
So, the question is - why are you concerned about the production of CO2? Especially in such tiny quantities?

Wake wrote:
I think I have already explained to you that the actual MGT is almost entirely reliant upon atmospheric density than gaseous content. Are you beating a dead horse because of the Primacy Effect?

dehammer wrote:
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

dehammer wrote:
Co2 is unstable.

dehammer wrote:
That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

dehammer wrote:
The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

dehammer wrote:
Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere.

dehammer wrote:
Satellite data shows this is true.

dehammer wrote:
They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.

That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.

dehammer wrote:

That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.

IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Yea, its a magic thing called gravity. Babies learn what it is when they throw things and see it hit the floor.

Gravity is not energy.

dehammer wrote:

That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.

IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.

Into the Night wrote:

dehammer wrote:

That's why it requires energy to break it up into carbon and hydrogen again.

IF there was any doubt you knew nothing about science, you just proved it. There is no hydrogen in co2. When scientist talk about the stability of a molecule, they are talking about its energy shells, not the bonds.

Typo. Carbon and oxygen.

dehammer wrote:
It wasn't a typo. It was a complete lack of understanding of the science of co2, convection, conduction, and infrared radiation.

dehammer wrote:
What is worse, is a total lack of willing to accept what others say. He is trolling because he is deliberately trying to make people mad. He argues that anything that supports other people's argument, is magic.

dehammer wrote:
Look at the fact he states that gravity does not exist.

dehammer wrote:
There is only one way the earth loses energy, radiation. While there is some energy that is lost in other frequencies, the majority of the energy from the atmosphere is lost in infrared radiation. Most molecules and atoms of the atmosphere are stable. This means they release energy very slowly.

Co2 is unstable. That means it releases infrared in microseconds, instead of minutes or even hours of some other molecules, such as water vapor.

The majority of the energy from the atmosphere is released when co2 impacts other molecules and atoms and releases that energy as infrared. Half of this energy goes towards the earth and half goes into space.

Increasing co2 increases the amount of energy that it released from the atmosphere. Satellite data shows this is true. They used to use this data as proof that co2 was increasing in the upper atmosphere, but then it was pointed out that this meant increasing co2 decreased the energy in the atmosphere.