[blueash]

Originally Posted by Velvet

Is there a way of making the avatar a bit bigger? I can’t do much on my iPad. The graph can’t be read.

I understand the concern about the rate of change. There are so many values that are involved with climate change. Even if the facts are clear, there are people who hold different values.

A person's values doesn't change the facts. We all have a human tendency to allow our biases to influence how we interpret those facts. The difference between science and faith is that science is fact based, can be tested, and changes with new evidence. Religion is none of those things. Including my own faith.

[Velvet]

I agree. What I was referring to was that the same fact may be welcomed by one person and opposed by another. There seems to be an assumption by some people that everyone is opposed to climate change and it’s consequences. In my experience, that is not always true.

I wasn’t thinking about religion, but that would bring in a new dimension.

[Love2Swim]

Originally Posted by blueash

A person's values doesn't change the facts. We all have a human tendency to allow our biases to influence how we interpret those facts. The difference between science and faith is that science is fact based, can be tested, and changes with new evidence. Religion is none of those things. Including my own faith.

Excellent!

[blueash]

For those of you claiming solar activity is causing global climate change. From NASA a graph showing solar activity for the last 140 years and global temperature [air temperature not water] averaged to 11 year trend. As you will see there is NO correlation. In fact since 1960 there has been a lessening of solar activity while temperatures have risen

Click on thumbnail to enlarge, or click on link to go to source.

[Velvet]

The reason why some people may be opposed to helping with climate change can be the costs associated with it. I am in a position where I can afford it, but I know many people who can’t.

Anyways, I can see the good will and certainly appreciate it.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Velvet

If we take China for example, in my opinion, they need help rather than judgement. Someone mentioned number of people relate to amount of pollution. China tried the one child policy, but because of misogyny etc most people had boy children. Then they found there is gender imbalance, not enough girls for wives and families. China needs to feed their people, their manufacturing industry is developing well, but with lots of pollution. The West could offer help with how to have cleaner and cheaper production methods. Educational exchange has already started that. I believe there is hope.

Traditionally in most Asian cultures the eldest male child inherits the property of the parents and also has the obligation of taking care of the parents until they die. I guess if you want to call that misogyny go for it.
The Chinese government doesn't need anyone to help them to clean up their environment, that information is readily available. The government doesn't care about pollution or their people, they only care about the revenue the government receives from industry. The leaders of china aren't backwoods aborigines that need the guidance of "enlightened" American environmentalists, for the most part they are well educated people.
Back to the one child rule in China. I worked with a Chinese intern who was the second child in her family. I asked how that was possible due to the one child rule and she stated that there were exceptions for certain people. Translated meaning is that in China and like here and everywhere else rich and powerful people do as they like.

[Velvet]

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Velvet

If the eldest has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny.

Not in their historical and in many cases centuries of cultural tradition.

[Velvet]

Because it was done in the past, does not make it acceptable not then nor now. We also used to have human sacrifices.

How did the eldest become a male? Through female infanticide. I won’t go into the details of how these young children were killed. But, if that was your grand daughter, under what conditions would it be acceptable?

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Velvet

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.

If a woman becomes pregnant with a second child and the government finds out she is forced to have an abortion. The penalties are severe enough that most couples don't have that second child.

[rustyp]

This is getting off track. I suggested one of the biggest impacts that humans could make against the war on climate change is zero population growth. Zero population growth can be achieved if each couple limit offspring to two children. I also want to recognize and support the idea that none of these efforts will amount to anything unless it is a worldwide initiative.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Velvet

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.

I agree with the soldier that China doesn't need "enlightened environmentalists" to educate them.

I think misogyny is not an accurate description as to why people would choose males if they could have one child. It is for the very reason that Number 10 G.I. said.

I have my opinions, you have yours. I really like the G.I. Joe's way of thinking.

[Aloha1]

Originally Posted by blueash

I am not offering an opinion. I am offering to link you to evidence. Archeology is not climate science nor even earth science. Plate tectonics is a very interesting field of geology, but not climate science. Read the links I provided, use google to search for any evidence from any scientific source to support your statement that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than humans each year and report back.
I did not insult you. I called out a lie which you repeated. And I presented contemporary sources including the US government disproving your claim. You returned with the names of people none of whom have any expertise in climate science and in fact are geologists and archeologists. Again, find me a study supporting your "fact" None of these should be a paper showing that one eruption X years ago cause a temporary change in the weather. Yes that happens, but ongoing discharge from volcanoes is not a significant factor in the continuing rise of CO2 and the continuing rise in mean global temperature. Human activity is responsible for this, not volcanoes, not sunspots. And there are many many proposals as to what can be done to slow or hopefully reverse this trend. But until everyone is on board that this is real and it is humans, things will get worse.

For those who argue it is just cycles, no. Cycles are very slow over thousands of years. NASA has reported on this in a clear concise way. This change is rapid and not due to natural slow cycles. And for those who say, so what it is only 2 degrees centigrade. That is 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In a living system that is huge. If your temperature goes up 4 degrees something is very wrong. And 4 degrees from a base of 99 is a much smaller disruption than 4 degrees from a base of 57.

A disparaging remark was made about my quote: "education" Not appreciated. Also, My comment on Volcanoes said pollutants, not greenhouse gases. Spell check did me a disfavor, Dr. Holman was a Paleontologist. Both Paleontology and Archaeology can teach us about the past climate of the planet. How else do you think we've learned about the FACT that the Sahara was a verdant grassland 4,000 years ago and not a desert? Or that Greenland was just that 1,000 years ago? Or perhaps, as far as science has been able to determine, the warmest period in the recent past was approximately 50 million years ago with average temps almost 8 degrees F higher than today. This pre dates humans. Perhaps you should review an article from 49 NASA scientists calling out NASA for it's rush to judgement on human caused climate change. You may be unaware that the norm for this planet over the eons has been to be ice free. No ice caps, no glaciers. CO2 is only one part of this whole debate. As far as cycles, the Maunder Minimum solar cycle is a well known factor in climate on this planet and it does not happen over thousands of years. Finally, recall that I never said climate change was not real. On that we can agree if nothing else.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by rustyp

This is getting off track. I suggested one of the biggest impacts that humans could make against the war on climate change is zero population growth. Zero population growth can be achieved if each couple limit offspring to two children. I also want to recognize and support the idea that none of these efforts will amount to anything unless it is a worldwide initiative.

That would interfere with the whole freedom of religion thing, where in some religions, birth control of any kind is taboo. If you're married, it's because you're a man and woman who plan on reproducing. You do so as long as both parties remain fertile.

I can't imagine living like that, but apparently there are entire sects in the USA built around the concept.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

That would interfere with the whole freedom of religion thing, where in some religions, birth control of any kind is taboo. If you're married, it's because you're a man and woman who plan on reproducing. You do so as long as both parties remain fertile.

I can't imagine living like that, but apparently there are entire sects in the USA built around the concept.

I dunno. I do know this

Most Catholics disagree with the prohibition of birth control; in fact, surveys find that approximately 90 percent of sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age use a birth control method forbidden by the church.


I also don't think many kill fatted calves and almost everyone eats bacon.

We will find out eventually....

or not.