Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: Continued DENIAL (#6)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: Continued DENIAL (#6)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 38210
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 2145137 - Posted: 12 Jan 2025, 19:20:07 UTC

I wonder what the deniers will come up with if these go off.

Millions of tonnes of ice have been keeping the lid on Antarctica’s volcanoes for millennia. Now it’s melting fast, and eruptions are on the cards.

Millions of tonnes of ice have been keeping the lid on Antarctica’s volcanoes for millennia. Now it’s melting. Fast. And researchers say a bout of eruptions is on the cards.

About 100 dormant volcanoes are known to inhabit the southernmost continent.

Some have peaks that extend above the ice sheet. But most are completely buried.

That ice is melting.

The risk of all that water rolling off Antarctica’s land mass and into the oceans has long been known to pose a threat through rising sea levels.

But it’s also removing weight. And that weight has been pressing down on millions of years’ worth of magma build-up beneath Antarctica’s crust.......
ID: 2145137 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2147288 - Posted: 11 Mar 2025, 12:07:01 UTC

Repost... winter maximum:

Arctic sea ice extent: past four weeks
(to scale down: resize browser window)


Source
ID: 2147288 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2147307 - Posted: 11 Mar 2025, 23:38:38 UTC - in response to Message 2147288.  
Last modified: 11 Mar 2025, 23:39:15 UTC

Repost... winter maximum:

Arctic sea ice extent: past four weeks
(to scale down: resize browser window)


Source

Is there anything to show the extent of the new ice, 1-year-old ice, 2-year old ice, and multiyear surviving ice?...

That makes a great difference to the volume and nature of the ice and the weather and climate effects...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2147307 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2147328 - Posted: 12 Mar 2025, 16:48:30 UTC - in response to Message 2147307.  

... And that all adds up to a scary yet-another-record-broken minimum:


Global Sea Ice Hit Record Low in February...


... A heatwave in the Arctic... ... 26% less ice... ... Extra ocean heating due to no protective reflective layer of ice and snow...

... And...


There are Consequences.

All on our only one planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2147328 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24930
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 2147336 - Posted: 12 Mar 2025, 19:52:29 UTC

ID: 2147336 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2147339 - Posted: 12 Mar 2025, 20:46:25 UTC

Deny this?


Fletcher Prouty Explains Invention and Use of Term "Fossil Fuels"


Fossil fuel companies are BLOCKING countries {from going green} with billion-dollar lawsuits


... All on our only one planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2147339 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2147359 - Posted: 13 Mar 2025, 8:45:54 UTC - in response to Message 2147307.  

Is there anything to show the extent of the new ice, 1-year-old ice, 2-year old ice, and multiyear surviving ice?...

That makes a great difference to the volume and nature of the ice and the weather and climate effects...
It's shrinking further. Thick multiyear ice survives in summer just in regions North of Canada and Greenland:

Danish Meteorological Institute - Modelled arctic sea ice thickness (in English)

  • Configurable animation for years 2000-2025 (notchy to configure)
  • including graphs of ice volume vs. 2004-2013 average

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

ID: 2147359 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2147401 - Posted: 14 Mar 2025, 11:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 2147359.  

Now that is scary...

Ya can't trust to walk across to the North Pole!!


That thin stuff don't last long...



All on our only one planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2147401 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2147407 - Posted: 14 Mar 2025, 14:12:59 UTC
Last modified: 14 Mar 2025, 14:16:03 UTC

Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen was the first who attempted to reach the North Pole during his years long ice drift on the vessel "Fram". When he found out he will miss the Pole he set off on foot from March 1895 to June 1896 with one companion, pulling heavy sleds. He had to give up at 86°13' N because the ice drift near the Pole was unpredictable. On clear days he saw (celestial navigation) that direction and speed of drift often almost nullified his daily marching performance, making it impossible to estimate the number of days to the Pole.

Today, Nansen would immediately be doomed by the frequent opening of wide water channels between ice floes, which would require crossing by boat.

Btw.: When did the last explorer reached the North Pole by foot? I doubt this is still possible in the 21st century.

Nansen's ice drift took full three years (Sep 1893 - Aug 1896); food rations planned for five years. The latest drift of the German research vessel "Polarstern" took just under a year (Oct 2019- Aug 2020) on almost the same drift route.

The current Arctic ice cap is thin, more flexible and influenced by ocean currents and surface winds than in the 19th century. No one knows the ice volumes of the past. But the expedition reports of the first Arctic Explorers describe gigantic heaps of piled up thick ice floes everywhere due to ice compression. Difficult to overcome or circumvent. That's no more.

ID: 2147407 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51543
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 2147702 - Posted: 23 Mar 2025, 4:57:50 UTC

Another heads up, about a series that I am watching right now.
Originally produced by the History Channel, I am currently watching it on Amazon Prime.
It is called 'How The Earth Was Made'.
There are two seasons, I am into the second one.
It has completely convinced me that the 'climate change' activists are complete wingnuts.
At least in the sense that they claim that mankind is responsible for climate change.
It also has shown me what a minor force man is against Mother Nature.
The series will show you the immense changes that the earth has gone through since it's creation some 2.5 billion years ago and still is undergoing to this very day.
It reinforces my long held belief that mankind has had very little impact on the climatic changes on this planet.
They have been going on in a cyclical nature since the planet cooled off enough to have a crust.
And this has been going on for billions of years, long before mankind arrived on this earth.
They cover many topics.
Volcanoes, tsunamis, Loch Ness, asteroids, fossil records, tectonic plates, mountain building and destruction, the carving of the Grand Canyon, and even salt mining under the freshwater Great Lakes, something that I was totally unaware of even though I live not very far from there.
Scotland and New York were actually in contact a long long time ago.

Kitty tested, kitty approved, and highly recommended.
"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

ID: 2147702 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2147730 - Posted: 24 Mar 2025, 10:33:42 UTC

The problem with institutionalized climate change research in the form of IPCC reports is that at some point an influential group took over and imposed thought restrictions. Many early climate researchers who pointed to massive influence of nature on climate change or longer natural cycles (e.g., solar activity; not just the known periodic 11 year cycle; but longer cycles) were ignored. Hmmm, not ignored... Their research is included in the full editions of reports. However, the edited executive summaries, which form the basis for political decisions at climate conferences do no longer contain any deviating opinions that question the mainstream mantra: climate change is 100% human-made.

I'm not a climate change denier. I believe humans have a great influence. We should limit our footprint as much as possible, but without giving up achievements of modernity (freedom, prosperity) or destroying nature. That's what we're doing right now. We face ideologic-driven deindustrialization to achieve 'climate goals' detached from the original goal: global CO2 savings... in effect: 'Greenwashing'.

Instead, our parts of the North and Baltic Seas are being extensively developed with offshore wind farms. We face significant deforestation and broad clearings for crawler cranes in almost every larger* forest area to errect as much 200+ meters tall wind turbines as possible. Almost our entire country is being transformed into a wind and solar industrial zone; no prospect of an end to this lunacy. It's a crime against nature. This cannot be the right path. The idea that climate change can be stopped through net-zero is absurd and refuted by documented historical experience dating back to ancient Greece and Rome.

[*] the European perception of a 'large forrest' is a continuos, cohesive forrest of maybe a couple thousand hectars (a dozen square kilometers). Americans, Canadians, or e.g. Scandinavians would deride our 'large forrests' as a small town park, with the many forrestry trails within... each hundred meters... a natural forest? Not really... a centuries old human landscape which at least looks like nature to us. I've seen the first ancient woodland when I was 25 years old somewhere in Norway. What a difference to our forests.
ID: 2147730 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2148365 - Posted: 23 Apr 2025, 1:14:49 UTC

US Interior secretary orders offshore wind project shut down
wrote:
... Trump's animosity toward wind power has a long history, so it's unlikely that this largely positive report will do much to get the hold on leasing lifted. In reality, however, the long-term uncertainty about offshore wind in the US will probably block new developments until the end of Trump's time in office...



Hold tight? Steady as she blows???

Only in the USA...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2148365 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2148806 - Posted: 8 May 2025, 23:35:05 UTC

Hard to escape the 'Trump effect'...


Trump just made it much harder to track the nation’s worst weather disasters
wrote:
... abruptly stops tracking costs of the most devastating storms...


Dangerous clear-air turbulence is worsening due to global warming
wrote:
Climate change is making high-altitude winds much more volatile...

... invisible from the cockpit and can surprise pilots and damage aircraft...


Data centers say Trump’s crackdown on renewables bad for business, AI
wrote:
Without renewables, it's nearly impossible to meet growing power demand...


On cusp of storm season, NOAA funding cuts put hurricane forecasting at risk
wrote:
... the coastal population and value of property in harm’s way are growing. As five former directors of the National Weather Service wrote in an open letter, cutting funding and staff from NOAA’s work that is improving forecasting and warnings ultimately threatens to leave more lives at risk.


In his first 100 days, Trump launched an “all-out assault” on the environment



Enjoy?

Stay safe folks?
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2148806 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2148813 - Posted: 9 May 2025, 7:53:24 UTC - in response to Message 2148806.  
Last modified: 9 May 2025, 7:54:53 UTC

Trump just made it much harder to track the nation’s worst weather disasters
wrote:
... abruptly stops tracking costs of the most devastating storms...
Just heard in the news yesterday that NOAA scientists independently reached out to colleagues in Europe to backup irrecoverably climate archive data. They were in talks with people from the German Alfred Wegener Polar Research Institute (AWI)... As this institute is accustomed to large-scale multi-national polar expeditions there will be unbureaucratic support without lengthy official channels. But I fear they don't have the storage capacities at hand to rescue everything from a behemoth like NOAA which is endagered by Trump's budget cuts.

The previous president of the AWI, Professor Antje Boetius just recently took the opportunity to become President of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI). Why? She explained this privately financed institute, founded by David Packard (Hewlett-Packard), is top-notch and offers way more opportunities (budget) for deep sea research than any government funded European one is capable of.

So, supposedly there are more than enough non-government institutions in the U.S. who could help to protect NOAA's valuable data archives against Trump's anti-climate research fury.
ID: 2148813 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2149251 - Posted: 23 May 2025, 21:48:31 UTC
Last modified: 23 May 2025, 21:49:07 UTC

All in the Name of 'Business' and the consequences be damned for us all?


Decades of Deceit
wrote:
The Case Against Major Fossil Fuel Companies
for Climate Fraud and Damages

... The evidence could hardly be clearer: For
decades these companies possessed detailed and accurate knowledge about the dangers their
products pose to the global climate and understood that climate action would threaten their
business models. Yet they planned, funded, and continue to engage in a campaign to profit
from the planet’s destruction by deceiving the public and blocking climate action...

... Executive Summary

What Fossil Fuel Companies Knew About Climate Change—and When They Knew It

What Fossil Fuel Companies Did Instead of Addressing Climate Change ...



That makes for some amazing reading...


All on our only one planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2149251 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2150079 - Posted: 24 Jun 2025, 22:57:43 UTC

Deny this?


Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles


That is pretty comprehensive!

Skipping the introduction, you can jump straight into all the claims.


Phew!

Quite an example of how fools can ask more questions than can be answered!!


All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2150079 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2150097 - Posted: 25 Jun 2025, 12:07:58 UTC - in response to Message 2150079.  
Last modified: 25 Jun 2025, 12:36:05 UTC

Deny this?

Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

[quote]#4 Clearing trees for solar panels negates any climate change benefits An average acre of solar panels in the United States reduced approximately 204–231 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest. https://sks.to/solartrees
Why are there still forests in the U.S. then? Don't they know we have to save the climate? Act now!

#9 Reliance on solar will make the United States dependent on China and other countries Although the United States still imports a majority of the solar panels it installs, domestic solar manufacturing is on the rise and likely to grow further as manufacturers open factories in the U.S. https://sks.to/solarchina
Trump claimed his beautiful tariffs will lead to future iPhones being manufactured in the U.S. Tim Cook personally explained why this will never happen. (No available workforce to do this). Why should it be different with solar panels? They do lead into a maximum dependency on China which even can't be reverted in short time; e.g. if Xi finally orders to invade Taiwan one day.

#11 Solar energy is more expensive than fossil fuels and completely dependent on subsidies Unsubsidized solar energy is now generally cheaper than fossil fuels and according to the International Energy Agency, solar PV is “the cheapest source of new electricity generation in most parts of the world." https://sks.to/solarprice
Consumers and industry don't care about labels, certificates or Guiness world records for "the cheapest source of electricity". They just care about the costs they have to pay (which includes taxes they have to pay for subsidies).

Any truthful consideration of costs for solar (or wind for the same reason) vs. fossils must include the costs to mitigate the intermittency of these energy sources (gird-scale batteries; increased interconnector capacities; reactive power supply; voltage maintenance in grids (supposedly caused blackout in Spain), ... or e.g. hydrogen miracles) as well as the vast costs to extend and reinforce existing transmission grids (onetime construction costs and continuous maintenance cost; heavily increasing grid costs) due to far longer avg. transmission distances (e.g. off-shore wind); which means a complete departure from the previous principle of cost-efficient generation close to consumption hotspots in an interconnected continent-wide grid to minimize expensive standby generation capacities.

Contemporary HVAC grids weren't designed to transmit electricity independent from location of generation and drain like it would be a copper plate. You can extend and reinforce grids, or add HVDC "shortcuts" to enable that. But please truthfully state estimated costs and needed construction times before doing that. If green lobbyists convince you not to do that... not to add grid costs to the capital budgeting for renewables projects, but instead to force transmission grid operators by law to "connect" all green wind and solar farms ASAP, and for free; you could easily end up with a "green" and "transformed" electric grid in which electricity becomes a luxury (that is: expensive; scarce, not available all the time).

I just recapitulated what I observed during 20 years of German "Energiewende" (of course successful...; don't dare to claim otherwise).

If comparisions of renewables vs. fossils leave out nuclear energy and induced grid costs of renewables, they never will result in a resilient strategy for a clean future electric supply that is both, cost-efficient AND reliable but either cost-efficient OR reliable. ...and if things don't progress as promised by biased renewables lobbyists; the South African scenario is more likely:

  • unrealiable; with frequent brownouts (planned outages due to generation shortages); different reliability levels dependent on location
  • expensive
  • ...and dirty (CO2).


I have to write something for the monthly paycheck I get from the nuclear lobby. ;-)

ID: 2150097 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21769
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 2150098 - Posted: 25 Jun 2025, 12:32:34 UTC - in response to Message 2150097.  
Last modified: 25 Jun 2025, 12:33:03 UTC

Deny this?

Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles

#4 Clearing trees for solar panels negates any climate change benefits An average acre of solar panels in the United States reduced approximately 204–231 times more carbon dioxide per year than an acre of forest. https://sks.to/solartrees
Why are there still forests in the U.S. then? Don't they know we have to save the climate? Act now!

I have to write something for the monthly paycheck I get from the nuclear lobby. ;-)

Mmmm... I'm surprised at the deforestation quote... Considering a singular isolated tree, perhaps. Considering a forest, there's a lot more than just the trees gobbling up carbon...

And so far, our experience of nuclear fission heat generation for steam powered electricity generation is that the up front capital costs and very long build time and the extremely costly decommissioning makes nuclear power far too slow to start and far too costly overall. Renewables will have long ago already taken over by the time any meaningful addition of nuclear fission comes onstream.

(However, a nuclear industry is a 'must' to keep them nuke bombs viable...)


All on our only one planet...
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 2150098 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Scrooge McDuck
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 99
Posts: 1751
Credit: 1,674,173
RAC: 54
Germany
Message 2150104 - Posted: 25 Jun 2025, 13:54:39 UTC - in response to Message 2150098.  

Mmmm... I'm surprised at the deforestation quote... Considering a singular isolated tree, perhaps. Considering a forest, there's a lot more than just the trees gobbling up carbon...
I'm not. I do believe this claim. The scientific progress in solar cells as well as the efficiency gains made possible by large-scale Chinese manufacturing are extraordinary. Costs became so low; grid-scale solar farms even financially killed all previous generation large thermal solar plants in the Western U.S. deserts.

But I do not want to live in a world where the countryside, farms, forests are replaced by solar arrays that reshape the surface of earth. That is a dystopy and I have seen enough of that already in Germany. It especcially hurts in low mountain landscapes, wide upper valleys of major rivers; less so in the lowlands; hidden by stripes of forests. There are sad photographs from Chinese uplands and, as you know, the majority of the global solar production is installed in China; nobody asks regional citizen assemblies... for approval in this flawless dictatorship.

And so far, our experience of nuclear fission heat generation for steam powered electricity generation is that the up front capital costs and very long build time and the extremely costly decommissioning makes nuclear power far too slow to start and far too costly overall. Renewables will have long ago already taken over by the time any meaningful addition of nuclear fission comes onstream.
The main problem with nuclear energy was: we stopped developing and building modern nuclear plants to replace coal altogether in the 1980s (except France; they only stopped in ~2000) in the exact moment when the 4th generation of pressurized water reactors became ultra-reliable, and remarkably cheap due to the effects of economy of scale. The last 4th gen German 1,330 MW Konvoi-type PWRs, built by Siemens-KWU in the late 1980s costs just 8 billion Marks each (adjusted by inflation, supposedly 8 billion Euros today), their construction took just six years. There was a specialized, experienced construction industry who finished one project after the other. Serial production of same type power plants.... This industry as well as the knowledge of engineers and workers got lost.

In between first Green politicians came to power (misters, directors of regulatory bodies) in states; they did everything they could to regulate and impose high costs on the nuclear industry. Today's rules on handling nuclear fuels and waste are grotesque here if you compare them to to the chemical industry with similar dangerous materials or toxic forever chemical waste that also requires safe deposits in deep mines. In the end each transport of nuclear fuel or waste was met by a outright 'civil war' of tens of thousands of (paid?) activists confronting police and authorities. It became unbearable for politicians. In France? In Sweden? nothing... The nuclear industry is dead here now, to expensive to restart.

We shouldn't simply confess and accept that but question the reasons and investigate why the cheapest and most reliable power plants of the 1980s had been nuclear ones.

The nuclear power plants in the U.S. were killed by market forces due to cheaper coal, in Europe even by cheap import coal from Australia when governments became unwilling to continue high subsidies for domestic coal workers. No one thought about CO2 back then. Imagine we had enforced a CO2 price on coal back in 1980.

The small Eastern Soviet dominion (GDR) where I grew up depended to ~90% on domestic, ultra-dirty lignite (back then even without flue gas cleaning removing SO2; sulfur dioxide; this way killing forests on mountain tops as far as Poland, Czech Rep): The strategy back then was to replace lignite with 2nd and 3rd gen Soviet PWRs. All projects stopped in 1990, all active ones shutdown and dismantled. We still have the old lignite plants of the 1980s and built many giant new ones since, the newest 650 MW one just in 2012. CO2 taxes will displace them by the 2040s ... with what? Gas turbines for dark doldrums, summer nights? Hydrogen? A compelling strategy is missing.
ID: 2150104 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Martin Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Jun 03
Posts: 2490
Credit: 646,848
RAC: 0
United States
Message 2150114 - Posted: 25 Jun 2025, 23:02:32 UTC

Reduce human population down to 2 billion (gently).

Ref. "The Eight-Billion-Person-Bomb", Naomi Oreskes, "Scientific American", March 2003, p. 76.
ID: 2150114 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects and Politics: Continued DENIAL (#6)


 
©2025 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.