jojo69 I'm going to reply because I respect your contributions, good humour and seemingly easy grasp of common sense of most complicated matters (you may have imbibed a little too much of the eco-facist Kool-aid to see the forest for the trees here though)
Just because the globalists are using a crisis to expand their power it does not necessarily follow that the crisis does not exist.
This is sloppy logic Marcus, try harder.
You've got the cart before the horse, logically speaking. In hindsight, the IPCC was set-up with the goal of creating a manufactured crisis (or hijacked), any dissenting scientists of the initial IPCC were hounded out of the organisation over the years, sometimes viciously. More than a few of the most effective dissenters have had curiously early-age heart attack deaths, but that's hard to say if there is a 'statistical fingerprint' of foul-play afoot. Of the "97%" consensus, it takes only 1 lone voice of the remaining 3% to be correct for them all to be wrong, that's science, ask Einstein.
the more concerning threat is not climate change anyway its rising co2 levels.
ocean acidification, species loss, collapsing fisheries stocks, depleting fresh water aquifers, the list goes on
I really have to take issue with the implied idea that there is some specific lever we can throw, in this case co2, and continue on our merry way.
We need to completely rethink our relationship with our, very finite, biome and stop behaving like petulant valley girls with daddy's credit card.
let's take these one at a time;
1) ocean acidification ... this is a bogus made up term to begin with, the oceans are alkali with pH around 8.2, they are not acid, have never been acid. It's a typical scary word propaganda trick to think humans are making the oceans acid ( zero OMG!! bad humans), the correct scientific term if you were referring to a tiny change in pH from dissolved CO2 would be
dealkalinization ... btw CO2 dissolving in the oceans is a major route for permanent sequestration of carbon into lime, chalk, etc deposits via calcium carbonates used structurally by invertebrates and crustaceans.
2) species loss ... ok maybe this is an issue, it's subjective and depends on your feelings though. Massive extinction events have happened regularly in the Earth's past from various means. How much species diversity is exactly the right amount? do you feel like playing god to determine that? humans have cultivated huge quantities of biomass in the form of crops, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, there are probably more animals alive on the planet today than at any time in the past, let's celebrate mammalian abundance husbanded by humans! ... are they just not the "right" animals for your liking? my liking? his liking? should we all be living in teepees and hunting the roaming meager herds of buffalo in competition with wolves and large cats? Who really knows what is the right balance for number of species and quantities of each species that should be alive on earth at any particular time? It's just an excessively complicated question to believe anyone who claims to know the answer, they are just bullshitting you to gain an advantage over you somehow.
3) collapsing fisheries stock ... yep totally agree with you here, it sucks, people are stupid and greedy and the tragedy of the commons will prevail any time you get a shared resource situation like this. I think inevitably aquaculture will alleviate this in the near to not-too-distant future. Fish-farming has come a long way fast since price of wild fish started spiking after stocks collapse, locally I've seen some great ventures in exotic fish species, delicacies that were always thought too hard to be farmed, lobster, abalone, white-bait, scallops, etc. In fact, I suggest invest, aquaculture is going to have a great profitable future and its good for our local habitat (I mean who doesn't love to go fishing for realz?)
4) depleting fresh water aquifers ... yep totally agree again. Tragedy of the commons strikes again, mix in brain-dead socialist politicians looking to milk tense local water rights situations and the resulting mess is all but inevitable. I don't know any good solutions to fresh water problems, historically they are solved by wars, reduced populations, enforced conservation (rationing), then dams. Desalination from an abundant energy discovery is a fringe possibility (fusion or etc).
Poll
