Medical research vs population growth...

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else, and is NON CH related - chat about the weather, or anything else that takes your fancy.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
jtaylor
Forum Administrator
Posts: 1880
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:32 am
Real Name: Julian Taylor
Location: Wantage, OXON
Contact:

Medical research vs population growth...

Post by jtaylor »

With the announcement today from the UN that climate change is apparantly a potential catastrophe, does anyone else see the disparity between continued medical research, genetic research and cloning technologies etc. and the fact that the world has too many people in it??

Should we be stopping medical research, accepting that we will all die of something, but maybe divert the effort to providing equality across the world in terms of medical care? i.e. share the medicines we already have across the world??
Julian Taylor-Gadd
Leigh Hunt 1985-1992
Image
Founder of The Unofficial CH Forum
https://www.grovegeeks.co.uk - IT Support and website design for home, small businesses and charities.
User avatar
marty
Grecian
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:29 pm
Real Name: Marty E
Location: Buckinghamshire

Post by marty »

Yep.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Post by J.R. »

What a serious question JT !

I have very strong views on certain medical research especially concerning animal experimentation and cloning !
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
Hendrik
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:27 pm
Real Name: No really, it is Hendrik.
Location: Bad Ischl, Austria
Contact:

Post by Hendrik »

Wow, a surprisingly egalitarian sentiment coming from this forum! That's made my day. :D

I agree, largely (even though there is Parkinson's Disease in my family, and it's an area of medicine where they have just started making huge advances but are no where near finished). I think the money we spend on medical research should now be spent on whatever will do the most amount of good to the most people. One million dollars should be spent on preventing 1 million people getting malaria, and not adding a few years to the life of one rich western cancer patient. It might be sensible though, to keep a few thousand of the world's top researchers continuing with the cutting edge stuff, just to keep it ticking over, to stop it stagnating. Think of the technology we lost when the Romans left Britain, and how many centuries it took us just to get back to the same level.

Possibly the most sensible thing to do with the money would be to spend it on sex education and condoms for the Third World. Most efficient way of curing over-population, AIDS, migration and environmental problems all at the same time. The reason this will never happen is that in order to stay rich, the people at the top of the pyramid need the bottom of the pyramid to stay as huuuuuuuge and poor as possible. :roll:
Foureyes
Grecian
Posts: 926
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 11:26 am
Real Name: David
Location: England

Post by Foureyes »

Hendrik says:
Possibly the most sensible thing to do with the money would be to spend it on sex education and condoms for the Third World.
May I propose a small amendment to this, namely that we should start with effective sex education and condoms for the country with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe and an ever -increasing rate of STDs - the United Kingdom! Let us solve our own problems before we start preaching to others.

:shock:
Hendrik
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:27 pm
Real Name: No really, it is Hendrik.
Location: Bad Ischl, Austria
Contact:

Post by Hendrik »

Foureyes wrote: May I propose a small amendment to this, namely that we should start with effective sex education and condoms for the country with the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe and an ever -increasing rate of STDs - the United Kingdom! Let us solve our own problems before we start preaching to others.

:shock:
We do indeed have the highest rate in Europe (though this will probably change with all the Second World countries that are now joining). But having the highest rate in Europe is like saying you're the poorest person living in South Kensington...
One prevalent belief in southern Africa is that to 'cure' your HIV infection you have to rape a virgin. Licence enough to 'preach'? I think so. :shock:

It goes without saying that we in the UK need comprehensive sex education for all (no 'opt out' regardless of what fairy you believe in), together with free comprehensive birth control for all. I know some of the forum will disagree with us though, "I don't want my teenage daughter being handed out condoms like sweeties, she might find out about sex." Find me someone over the age of 10 who doesn't know how babies are made and I'll show you a pig with wings, a tail rudder and a jet engine.
User avatar
Mid A 15
Button Grecian
Posts: 3172
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
Real Name: Claude Rains
Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)

Post by Mid A 15 »

Four topics I'd like to briefly comment on if I may:

1. Climate Change

This has become the new religion and political ideology all in one even if there are (often suppressed) questions as to the veracity of the influence of man

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/ ... death.html


2. Population Control, "Too many people in the world"

I shudder (not when you write them Julian :) ) when I see these words mentioned in an increasingly secular society as the logical conclusion is the devaluation of the sanctity of human life.

Ironically many of the disciples of population control also believe passionately in man made climate change. Coincidence?

3. Medical Research

This is a difficult one. I think I draw a line at creating (then killing) a life to save another life by whatever means. This to me is eugenics under another name.

4. Sex Education

One could argue that the reason the UK has the problems it does is too much sex education rather than not enough.

Under age girls can obtain The Pill, the morning after pill and even abortions without parental consent believe it or not yet the problem persists and even worsens!

Maybe lessons in self respect for both boys and girls would prove more effective. They certainly couldn't do a lot worse in my opinion.
Ma A, Mid A 65 -72
User avatar
blondie95
Button Grecian
Posts: 2590
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:41 pm
Real Name: Amy Leadbeater
Location: Kent
Contact:

Post by blondie95 »

its difficult to put an answer on here without going on for days and not having your thoughts misunderstood.
I dont think medical research should be stopped and focus religned-we need to ensure what we are doing now is being done to best extent and put more into climate change etc.

I think both need to be worked on to the best we can
Amy Leadbeater
BaB 2000-01, Gre W01-02

Check out my blog http://leadpencils.blogspot.com/
User avatar
graham
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:07 pm
Real Name: Graham Slater
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Post by graham »

Four response to Mid A 15's comments. I'd like to add that my responses to 2-4 are simply opinions added to the debate. My response to 1 is based more on what is a consistent misinterpretation of scientific research.
1. Climate Change

This has become the new religion and political ideology all in one even if there are (often suppressed) questions as to the veracity of the influence of man

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/ ... death.html

This is a slightly naive statement. Sorry MidA 15, i don't mean to sound rude and I'm not suggesting that you personally are naive. It's a commonly stated complaint, and there is some degree of truth to it. However, it's like saying you can't prove there is no God. It's circular reasoning and it gets us nowhere in terms of uncovering why climate change is occuring and how policy and research can stop or slow it. Climate change is occuring. There is an element of natural climate change to this. However, we know that the climate is changing at a rate faster than seen for some 5 million years. This cannot be explained by our current models of how and why climate change occurs naturally. We know that global temperature increases have sped up since the industrial revolution, and we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of human activity can explain this trend. There is a lot more solid research that suggests that human activity is speeding up global climate change. The potential global impacts of climate change would be catastrophic for many reasons. While human activity is probably not the sole factor causing global temperature increases, we are 95% sure that it is speeding it up and will push it further than would occur naturally. We also know that we can do something about it, so why wouldn't we? If people want to debate the research and suggestions of the scientific community, then fine, but the negative impact this has on policy makers should be recognized. When the benefits of restricting greenhouse gas emissions go beyond climate change and impact our day to day lives, for example clean air, as well as reducing our dependancy on limited resources such as fossil fuels, why should we even be debating this? It's happening people, and whatever the percentages of responsibility are, we need to be doing something about it.
2. Population Control, "Too many people in the world"

I shudder (not when you write them Julian :) ) when I see these words mentioned in an increasingly secular society as the logical conclusion is the devaluation of the sanctity of human life.

Ironically many of the disciples of population control also believe passionately in man made climate change. Coincidence?
I'm not so sure these two topics are that closely related in terms of cause and effect. For example, the United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases yet ranks 144th in population density, well behind many third world countries.

The issue here isn't that the large number of people in the world is causing climate change. It's that the planet's resources can't sustainably support such a large population now, and certainly won't be able to once the full effects of climate change occur. I don't think anyone is devaluing the sanctity of human life; quite the contrary - human life (or any life) is so valubale that it shouldn't have to exist like battery hens in cages, which is likely to be what happens if population growth and climate change continue to occur at the rates they are now.
3. Medical Research

This is a difficult one. I think I draw a line at creating (then killing) a life to save another life by whatever means. This to me is eugenics under another name.
Define life......

As a scientist, I would argue that an embryo does not constitute life.
4. Sex Education

One could argue that the reason the UK has the problems it does is too much sex education rather than not enough.

Under age girls can obtain The Pill, the morning after pill and even abortions without parental consent believe it or not yet the problem persists and even worsens!

Maybe lessons in self respect for both boys and girls would prove more effective. They certainly couldn't do a lot worse in my opinion.
One could also argue that making contraception freely available does not alone constitute sex education. I quite agree that lessons in self respect would be quite effective. But surely this PART of sex education and not something different. People are going to have sex, whether you educate them about it or not, as Hendrik so elegantly put it. But sex education should be about giving them an understanding of actions and consequences, choices and options, so that they can make the most informed decisions possible.
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997
User avatar
Mid A 15
Button Grecian
Posts: 3172
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 1:38 pm
Real Name: Claude Rains
Location: The Patio Of England (Kent)

Post by Mid A 15 »

graham wrote:Four response to Mid A 15's comments. I'd like to add that my responses to 2-4 are simply opinions added to the debate. My response to 1 is based more on what is a consistent misinterpretation of scientific research.
1. Climate Change

This has become the new religion and political ideology all in one even if there are (often suppressed) questions as to the veracity of the influence of man

http://eureferendum2.blogspot.com/2007/ ... death.html

This is a slightly naive statement. Sorry MidA 15, i don't mean to sound rude and I'm not suggesting that you personally are naive. It's a commonly stated complaint, and there is some degree of truth to it. However, it's like saying you can't prove there is no God. It's circular reasoning and it gets us nowhere in terms of uncovering why climate change is occuring and how policy and research can stop or slow it. Climate change is occuring. There is an element of natural climate change to this. However, we know that the climate is changing at a rate faster than seen for some 5 million years. This cannot be explained by our current models of how and why climate change occurs naturally. We know that global temperature increases have sped up since the industrial revolution, and we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of human activity can explain this trend. There is a lot more solid research that suggests that human activity is speeding up global climate change. The potential global impacts of climate change would be catastrophic for many reasons. While human activity is probably not the sole factor causing global temperature increases, we are 95% sure that it is speeding it up and will push it further than would occur naturally. We also know that we can do something about it, so why wouldn't we? If people want to debate the research and suggestions of the scientific community, then fine, but the negative impact this has on policy makers should be recognized. When the benefits of restricting greenhouse gas emissions go beyond climate change and impact our day to day lives, for example clean air, as well as reducing our dependancy on limited resources such as fossil fuels, why should we even be debating this? It's happening people, and whatever the percentages of responsibility are, we need to be doing something about it.
2. Population Control, "Too many people in the world"

I shudder (not when you write them Julian :) ) when I see these words mentioned in an increasingly secular society as the logical conclusion is the devaluation of the sanctity of human life.

Ironically many of the disciples of population control also believe passionately in man made climate change. Coincidence?
I'm not so sure these two topics are that closely related in terms of cause and effect. For example, the United States is the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases yet ranks 144th in population density, well behind many third world countries.

The issue here isn't that the large number of people in the world is causing climate change. It's that the planet's resources can't sustainably support such a large population now, and certainly won't be able to once the full effects of climate change occur. I don't think anyone is devaluing the sanctity of human life; quite the contrary - human life (or any life) is so valubale that it shouldn't have to exist like battery hens in cages, which is likely to be what happens if population growth and climate change continue to occur at the rates they are now.
3. Medical Research

This is a difficult one. I think I draw a line at creating (then killing) a life to save another life by whatever means. This to me is eugenics under another name.
Define life......

As a scientist, I would argue that an embryo does not constitute life.
4. Sex Education

One could argue that the reason the UK has the problems it does is too much sex education rather than not enough.

Under age girls can obtain The Pill, the morning after pill and even abortions without parental consent believe it or not yet the problem persists and even worsens!

Maybe lessons in self respect for both boys and girls would prove more effective. They certainly couldn't do a lot worse in my opinion.
One could also argue that making contraception freely available does not alone constitute sex education. I quite agree that lessons in self respect would be quite effective. But surely this PART of sex education and not something different. People are going to have sex, whether you educate them about it or not, as Hendrik so elegantly put it. But sex education should be about giving them an understanding of actions and consequences, choices and options, so that they can make the most informed decisions possible.
Thanks for the responses Graham and no offence taken re the naive remark!

1. You are a scientist whereas I got grade 6 (a C in new money) in physics with chemistry "O" level in 1969. However I try to read widely to plug the gaping holes in my scientific knowledge and I've come across this chap Fred Singer who, to a layman, appears eminently qualified to speak on this subject.

In essence he is saying that man does not materially affect CO2 levels whatever he does.

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/ ... 7&month=08

Knowing you have studied science to a high level your thoughts on this article would be interesting to read if you feel inclined to share them with us.

I would agree that it is in our interests to find alternative fuels as we seem to have an unhealthy dependence on importing fuels from parts of the world who are not our natural allies. If chip fat and the like can fuel vehicles then why not? I realise there are vested inerests in the oil industry!

2. My comments re the link to climate change and population control were based on another article I read where a scientist made a comment at a lecture that the best solution to climate change would be a virus that wiped out 90% of the human race. He apparently received a standing ovation!

If I can find the article again I will edit this post and either link it or copy and paste the relevant bit.

Here it is with a few other quotations:


“We are parasites. Nature would be much better off without us.”

Rosemary Radford Ruether

“The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics ... we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

Jacques Cousteau



....."The First Global Revolution, published by The Council of the Club of Rome, states that: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention ...The real enemy, then, is humanity itself." [1991, Pantheon Books, p. 115]

In the opinion of David Graber, a research biologist with the U.S. National Park Service: "Human happiness and certainly human fecundity are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth ...Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." [Los Angeles Times, Book Review Section, 22/10/89]

In the UNESCO Courier of November 1991, Jacques Cousteau wrote: "The damage people cause to the planet is a function of demographics - it is equal to the degree of development. One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshis ... This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it." ["The Population Controllers", New American Magazine, 27/6/94, p. 7.]

World-renowned scientist and evolutionary ecologist Eric Pianka, however, would find Cousteau’s formula timid and his figures miniscule! In a recent speech at the 109th meeting of the Texas Academy of Science at Lamar University in Beaumont (3-5 March 2006), Pianka condemned humans as "no better than bacteria" and told hundreds of his colleagues that 90 percent of us need to be wiped out by exposure to Ebola or some other deadly virus in order to save the planet. After outlining the various alternative solutions in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, he coldly stated that disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must die very soon if the population crisis is to be solved.

When he finished this talk urging the slow and agonising death by Ebola virus of 5 billion human beings, his colleagues burst out in sustained applause. "It wasn’t merely a smattering of polite clapping that audiences diplomatically reserve for poor or boring speakers," noted one appalled observer, Forrest Mims III, a member of the Texas Academy and chairman of its environmental section. "It was a loud, vigorous and enthusiastic applause."

In the ensuing question and answer session Pianka praised the police state that enforced China’s one-child policy, saying: "Smarter people have fewer kids." And his audience chuckled when he gleefully proposed that, "We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth." Five hours later, the Academy presented Pianka with a plaque in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist, which bought more sustained applause from 400 people in the banquet hall. Mims said that the 45-minute lecture converted a university biology senior into a Pianka disciple, who then published a blog that seriously supports Pianka’s mass death wish. ["Meeting Doctor Doom", Citizen Scientist, 31/3/06]......."


3. An embryo may not be capable of self sufficient life but it has that potential in the womb. Is it right to "grow" a potential human being only to kill it? In my opinion no.

4. As the father of 3 daughters, although my own daughters received a reasonable sex education, some of their friends were told only of the availability of contraception and that was it. The premise was they'll do it anyway so just tell them about contraception. That to me is a cop out not sex education in the broadest sense.
Ma A, Mid A 65 -72
Hendrik
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 467
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:27 pm
Real Name: No really, it is Hendrik.
Location: Bad Ischl, Austria
Contact:

Post by Hendrik »

Holland has one of the lowest teenage pregnancy rates yet has one of the most liberal, comprehensive "this is how it's done" sex ed programs in the world. Whilst we're on Holland, they also have a much lower rate of cannabis use than here. Hmmm.... coincidence?
If you want a guy to burn for our absurd teen-pregnancy rates, look at binge drinking in underprivileged white areas. Kids struggle enough to use protection when sober (but most of them DO manage), but after a few pints...

As for climate change and there being too many people, well of course they're linked. Thus the sort of rational, scientific person who believes in climate change will also acknowledge that there are too many people. Here's an idea: take a survey of said rational people and ask how many of them believe in creationism... There will also be a link and no, it won't be coincidence.

I don't think anybody mentioned taking lives to save lives. Quite the opposite, I think it is obscene to spend hundreds of thousands of lives (or the resources to save hundreds of thousands of lives) on one human life. Now THAT's more like eugenics, and it happens every single day.
User avatar
marty
Grecian
Posts: 835
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 1:29 pm
Real Name: Marty E
Location: Buckinghamshire

Post by marty »

Was watching Alan Carr last night. He said that over half of under 16 year olds have had sex and also that over 60% were obese.

"Who's f***ing all the fat kids?"
My therapist says I have a preoccupation with vengeance. We’ll see about that.
User avatar
J.R.
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15835
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:53 pm
Real Name: John Rutley
Location: Dorking, Surrey

Post by J.R. »

marty wrote:Was watching Alan Carr last night. He said that over half of under 16 year olds have had sex and also that over 60% were obese.

"Who's f***ing all the fat kids?"
Wasn't he brilliant ????
John Rutley. Prep B & Coleridge B. 1958-1963.
sejintenej
Button Grecian
Posts: 4092
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 12:19 pm
Real Name: David Brown ColA '52-'61
Location: Essex

Post by sejintenej »

graham wrote: We know that global temperature increases have sped up since the industrial revolution, and we know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels as a result of human activity can explain this trend. There is a lot more solid research that suggests that human activity is speeding up global climate change.
Certainly it is one possible cause. A crowd of leaf-cutter ants destroying every living leaf CAN cause an increase in CO2 and methane gases in the atmosphere.

CAN is just not good enough. The word which would be good enough is DOES and I don't think that that has yet been proven.
OTOH there is evidence of massive increases in CO2 in the distant past before homo sapiens got out of the slime. (Unless, that it, there was a previous race which bwe don't know about and whose bones were wiped out by some global catasrophe)

Mid A 15 wrote:4. As the father of 3 daughters, although my own daughters received a reasonable sex education, some of their friends were told only of the availability of contraception and that was it. The premise was they'll do it anyway so just tell them about contraception. That to me is a cop out not sex education in the broadest sense.
I get very cynical about this sort of thing. The only logical reason for such teaching is a wish by Gordon Brown (when he was Chancellor) to increase his VAT take at the expense of some poor kid.
There is another current example of this - the enforced curtailment of analogue TV so that everyone is forced to buy at extortionate cost some black box and pay tax on it. (He has a double take by forcing the TV companies to give him yet more money for the frequencies which they will use even though they have already paid him for the frequencies they currently use).

As for the subject discussion:
a) advances made in the 1970's mean that it is not necessary for the UK and Northern Ireland to use oil, gas or uranium to generate electricity. The knowledge exists and could be put into use and it would have the side effect of making coastal areas safer from some types of storm damage.
(That is NOT to say we will not still need oil - lubrication, plastics, road transport spring to mind as examples). Why don't we go down that route? ask the Chancellor how much money he would lose.
b) Is there really a food crisis? Maybe, but there doesn't need to be as the population is at present. Techniques have existed for several decades to intensify the growth of horticultural crops whilst cutting fertiliser use by 90% (based on area covered) and water use by about 75% (again area based) and these are equally suitable for desert as well as our sort of climate. Supermarkets already sell vegetables raised in such a manner. Water need not be a problem: brackish water distilled from seawater is usable. The investment cost is not high but the loss of control by large countries over smaller countries which are currently dependent on food imports and cash handouts is a barrier to some governments.
c) population growth? Yes, a problem from many different points of view. A recent newspaper article suggests that in just a few years a quarter of the UK population will be descended from muslims. Take that a few more years down the line (as things are at the moment) and they will be able to control the government and import Saudi type laws. I don't think it will get to that - there is likely to be civil unrest long before.
It is a cultural thing in one race well represented in the UK that so many children used to die in infancy that they would strive to have huge families in order to ensure that at least one male child reached adulthood. The cause has gone - the effect remains.
The Chinese tried the one family, one child route and were roundly scorned / condemned by many in the West. Who seriously thinks that the British or American or Indian or Indonesian governments could a) bring in such a law and b) enforce it? It is just not practicable.

I can see possible "solutions" -
- a human equivalent to Myxamatosis - perhaps even Bird Flu
- and / or humans acting like the experimental rats confined to an overcrowded cage - killing sprees so that the survivors have sufficient space
- and / or organised war. The German liebesraum invasion of Czechoslovakia is a precedent and could be coupled with a Nazi style anhilation of certain human types (could be colour (Hitler), or religion (Simon de Montfort/Cortes/Pizzaro) or political leaning (Stalin) or education (Pol Pot) etc.)
I don't like any of them but I see each of them as definitely possible.
- or do nothing - what politician wants to be thrown out at the next election for advocating an upopular solution? - leave it to the next generation

There are a number of radical solutions under consideration including but not limited to a giant umbrella shading the earth from the sun - it only needs to cover 2% of the sunlit area of the earth. However many of these simply postpone the problem


I know there are numerous speeeeling errors - I never was much good at letters!
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
User avatar
graham
Deputy Grecian
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:07 pm
Real Name: Graham Slater
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Post by graham »

CAN is just not good enough. The word which would be good enough is DOES and I don't think that that has yet been proven.
Sorry but science can't and won't give you proof or certainty. We unfortunately don't deal in truths or proofs, and anyone who says we do is speaking out of their a**. We deal in hypotheses and best ideas. human-induced climate change is the most plausible hypothesis and has not been directly falsified. It also has the broadest acceptance among the scientific community.

The problem is that you will never get everyone to agree. Thank goodness for that - It was Einsten's inquisitive mind that revolutionized hundreds of years of flat accpetance of Newton's principles. But the issue comes when people misinterpret science as being absolute. Then, those with vested interests can use the doubt to their advantage. Thus ' man -induced climate change is not universally accepted among the scientific community so let's not cut our greenhouse gas emissions'. Which is pretty stupid for a number of very obvious reasons.

Oh, and leaf-cutters might remove photosynthsizing leaves, but as part of an ecosystem they help recycle organic material and ultimately promote tree growth. The last time I checked, they weren't pumping hundreds of metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But I'm not an entomologist, so don't hold me to that :wink:
OTOH there is evidence of massive increases in CO2 in the distant past before homo sapiens got out of the slime
That is correct. However, the configuration of the continents at those times were vastly different, leading to no build ups of ice at the poles, very different global sea levels and very different global temperatures. The earth's current cycling of glacial/interglacial conditions are based on the presence of polar ice and variation in the earth's orbiting of the sun, which is surprisingly regular. We can easily model and predict how global temperatures and sea levels should vary, based on this. Most models cannot explain current trends based on this alone, and require anthropogenic factors to account for the increases in temperature. There are different opinions (e.g. Mid A 15's article, which I'm still reading through, btw). However, MOST scientists working in this field concur that the hypothesis of natural climate change has been falsified. I also don't think we want to return to the conditions that were present last time CO2 levels reached the proportions they're heading to now.
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997
Post Reply