Countries like the UK and the US would be able to cope because more processed food is consumed in the wealthier regions so the changing price of basic commodities was less of a factor in the price.

Excuse me, but does this say that because rich people buy more canned goods, the price of food will not go up?

Just making sure I understand what they're saying.

Because that's just plain wrong.

 

I'm not sure you understand the value and nuance of being rich. If you're rich, you just leave a bad spot and settle in a better one. Any place on earth is a perfect spot for the wealthy.
B

 

They've already proven that where the glaciers are melting away in one place, they are building up in another. It's already proven that the trade winds are changing because the earthquake in China shifted the earth...

These things are nothing new and are a naturally occurring, cyclical phenomenon. We just have enough technology and intelligence to actually see it on the global scale when they couldn't before.

 

"The authors argue" is about all I needed to read. Of course they argue their bogus points because it furthers their agenda.

I love how arrogant some humans are. "The earth is going through a warming trend and WE need to change it". Got news for all the kool-aid drinkers, the earth has been going through warming and cooling trends since before we were here and will be doing so long after we're gone.

 

So if the glaciers all melt and the tundra melts why won't all that additional land be available to plant crops? Like Greenland was for the Vikings 1000 years or so ago. Why won't all that vegitation growing on that new land be absorbing CO2?

 

Does it really matter?

Many developed countries have brought their population growth under control.
But developing countries have not.

Nobody wants to say it. But if you keep feeding them, they keep reproducing.
We can't keep up, because we can't keep up.

Right now there is a world wide migration from developing countries to those that are developed. These people will all need to be fed.

At the same time this leaves more resources in the countries where they came from. Those that live there will repeat the process and overpopulate their lands. They will exhaust their food supplies and look to other for help.

This is a battle that can not be won through political correctness. Somebody has got to step up to the plate, and say we can't keep feeding the whole freaking world.

Next we need to stop burning corn in our automobiles and start feeding it to people and cattle. It has failed badly as a fuel source. But it works fairly well as food.

It is not my fault, nor is it the fault of anyone one I know. That folks in developing countried keep overbreeding their food supply.

No other animal on the planet does this. Actually a few do on ocassion. But that is mostly due to human elimination of the predators that would normally prevent it from happening.

When I was a kid in the '60s. I remember the start of Trick for Treat for Unicef. The United Nations first attempt to alleviate hunger in thrid world countries. Designed to help feed all those starving children in places like Africa. What happend. More starving kids. And a bunch of UN folks lined their pockets.

 

Many developed countries have brought their population growth under control. But developing countries have not.

I'm a social scientist by trade, and the 'problem' you describe is a demographic shift that has been found to happen over and over again.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, in order to feed yourself when you were old, you needed to have lots of kids to support you. Combine this with high infant mortality rates, and people had lots of kids because they had too. It didn't really matter where you went. Families with 6, 8, 10 kids or more were common. This was not a 'religious' matter; it was a very practical one. And the population didn't grow wildly because the average lifespan was 30s or 40s.

Then the Industrial Revolution came along in what are our considered 'developed' countries like the U.S. We industrialized food production on a scale never been seen in world history, we learned that getting your drinking water from the same location where you dump human waste is a bad idea, and populations skyrocketed. Why? Because people were still accustomed to large families, and average lifespans started increased steadily.

After 2-3 generations of this, more and more people are freed up from agricultural duties, and a great many move to cities for better employment. In cities, having many children is an economic liability rather than a resource, and families scaled back the number of children they had dramatically. Other factors are at work too, but you get the general point.

And now in the U.S., women are only giving birth to 1.9 children, slightly below the number needed to maintain a steady population, which is generally considered to be 2.1 children per female. Among whites, it's only about 1.6. In the U.S. and Europe, total population growth would be zero or even negative if it were not for immigration. In Japan, the low birth rate is only 1.4per female, a number so low that it has many very concerned about the economic condition of the country, especially since the average Japanese person is a ripe 46 years old. By comparison, it's 37.6 in the U.S.

So after nations become 'developed' for a few generations, they almost universally experience dramatic reductions in their birthrates.

For what it's worth, the U.N.'s 'medium' prediction for global populations is that the number will stabilize at around 11 billion or so by 2100. Their 'low prediction is actually that the total population will decrease to about 6 billion. But that doesn't take into account many, many things that could happen one way or the other (i.e. even longer average lifetimes, war, famine, global pandemic, etc.).

 

I think thats why they call it climate change.

When you can see in a person's lifetime(a relatively short time) the change of regular climate, it seems to be quite serious. The regular way of doing things changes making us less efficient and more susceptible to our environment and the threats it has.

Of course as we change, there will be winners and losers as always. It might be a good time to see who would benefit from the changes in the long term.
333

 

Looking at history cooling periods brought famine, disease, and war.

Warming periods were more peaceful, had less disease and hunger.

And Algore wants us to do what?

 

As you can see, issuing warnings and trying to get people to take climate change seriously does not work here. Don't bother. Focus on preparing your own position to deal with the problems. It's every man for himself.

So if the glaciers all melt and the tundra melts why won't all that additional land be available to plant crops? Like Greenland was for the Vikings 1000 years or so ago. Why won't all that vegitation growing on that new land be absorbing CO2?

Will the land be fertile? Will it have adequate water? Keep in mind, it will be close to the Pole; what sort of growing season will it have? How much sunlight? What sort of storms will take place? How much new vegetation will grow there?

This is a pretty dicey proposition...

 

As you can see, issuing warnings and trying to get people to take climate change seriously does not work here. Don't bother.

As many times as you've made this whining point here, you'd think you'd finally just STFU and take the hint :thumb:.
Listen close (again) : We have all heard the "evidence", and found it wanting. We've seen the predictions fall short, or completely flat, or end up the exact OPPOSITE, more times than we can recall (and so have you).
We've seen the very name of the theory change repeatedly in order to finally encompass EVERY possible eventuality (and so have you).
We (including you) have seen the false claims, the manipulated data, the appeals to various logical falacies, and come to the understanding that these are NOT the tactics of someone with scientific truth on their side.
Now go read Gallard's excellent post again. Though tongue-in-cheek, it makes some very valid points that at the very least should give you some pause over this theory, and the true motives of those behind it.
Trust me, it ISN'T just about "saving the planet for future generations".

 

Regardless, climate change will affect all of us. We really need to deal with this problem sooner or it may be late for us. The disasters that's happening nowadays are very scary and too much devastating

 

I hope it warms up a little more, I hate using electric to heat the house. Maybe a little less rain, I mean a little more rain - whichever climate change is supposed to bring.

Anyone have an update on that drought in Texas being blamed on climate change?

 

11 Point "Climate Change" Primer


1) "Climate change" either directly, or indirectly influences everything.
2) Seasonal changes and local weather patterns are proof of "climate change" until they aren't.
3) The subject of "climate change" is amorphous. Thus, the title "climate change" will only be used up to the point that understanding of the issue by the public changes. Then it will be retired, never to be mentioned again, and a new more fitting title will be used.
4) On a professional scientific level "climate change" proponents are virtuous and altruistic, while its opponents are corporate schills, or worse. At the non professional level the same holds true. "Climate change" supporters are virtuous and altruistic, while its opponents are uninformed knuckle draggers, aka "deniers".
5) Pro "climate change" advocacy directly effects ones level of expertise on the issue. Thus a pro "climate change" politician, entertainer, or Womyn's Studies professor has a greater degree of knowledge on the subject than say an anti "climate change" meteorologist or NASA climatologist.
6) If you are a rich "climate change" proponent it is acceptable for you to have a carbon footprint the size of a small town. If you do not not have the same means as the rich climate change proponent; even if you yourself support their position, the acceptability of your carbon foot print drops dramatically, to the point that you are not capable of making any decision on the matter.
7) The monies used to fund studies supporting "climate change" in no way influence the outcome of said studies, while the monies used to fund studies disproving "climate change" skew the results and make them unusable and their creators untrustworthy.
8) Any acts of impropriety by pro "climate change" advocates, even if supported by corroborative documentation, are merely machinations of anti "climate change" deniers, and are to be ignored.
9) Only government funding, via tax revenues, can provide solutions for "climate change" problems. Any solution proposed by free market entities are only aimed at increasing the profits of "the rich".
10) Any adverse environmental impact caused by solutions to "climate change"are more acceptable than alternative solutions that do not advance the idea of "climate change". I.E. , the coal generated electricity used to charge electric cars is cleaner and more acceptable than the coal generated electricity used to power your house.
11) Faith in the theory of "climate change" is different, and more acceptable, than one having faith in a higher power, or deity. The former makes one morally upright and socially conscience while the latter makes one foolish and misguided.

BONUS POINT!!!
12) The sun has absolutely ZERO influence on the climate of the planet.

 

Worst case scenario:
Millions of poor people all over the world starve to death. Which would decrease the immigration problems white countries currently have. What exactly is the downside?

 

Yeah, a few weeks ago there was an MSM article telling us that in the next 15-30 years we can expect a mini ice age because the Sun's oscillations will cancel each other out, providing us with a 'cooler' star for a little while.

 

We have all witnessed this. Mother Nature cannot be predictable..

 

We`ll do ourselves in long before the planet gets around to it.

 

And as all this proves, I am correct and issuing warnings about the dangers of climate change is a waste of time until the deniers come out of De Nile. You can't even have a conversation about what those dangers might be without them butting in and insisting there's nothing to worry about, everything is FINE. Fine back at them, then; if climate change is happening, they are in the running for a Darwin Award and we adults should all cheer them on with "Go, Speed Racer, GO!". Even as we work on getting ready for TEOTWAWKI...

 

Moc, sometimes you get the strangest notions into your head.

"The dangers of climate change," makes me wonder what kind of change you're worried about.

It was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period than it is now and the human race THRIVED. So temps could tick up quite a bit more and it not be of any concern.

Flip that around and when the warm period ended we hit the little ice age and mass starvation that punished the human race and shrank the global population by easily half what it was at the peak of the warm period.

FURTHER, as has been explained to AD FRIGGEN NAUSEUM we are all preppers here. We are all preparing here.

To wag your finger at "deniers" on this board and act like ANY ONE OF US isn't preparing for any of a range of disasters simply because we don't believe your nonsense is ... idiotic at best.

 

Does anyone here seriously deny, or fail to believe for whatever reason that climate change is real? That climate change is occurring right now? That climate change has occurred as far back as ice core samples can be taken?

Seriously?

That's not really what this thread is about, as I cannot imagine anyone denying that climate change is real.

When I said, "It really does not matter what your personal thoughts on climate change are." I was referring to the causes of climate change. There's no need in going off on a tangent. Science still has no true proof and even if it did convincing flat earther types that climate change is going to affect us all in the future is beyond the scope of the thread.

It really doesn't matter what anyone posts as evidence I suppose.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you deny such and are still in good shape kudos to you!

If you'd like to consider the implications why not kick it around a bit and make sure that you're in good shape?

 

Hell, governments have been positioning themselves for climate change! All you need to do is look what the the open boarders, special group considerations have done in the US, by polarizing groups against one other. The eventual population outcome will most likely negate the bread basket concerns. That is why some come to this forum to expand on their survival knowledge from others and pursue trying to stay better informed.
While trying to make the best choices of information there will always be those who carry the smoke and mirror banners of the PC BS.

 

I just went through almost a decade of horrid drought that moved on to the west coast and manifested itself there.

I was shocked at the complete impossibility of growing gardens or crops, at the inability of this area to even grow vegetation enough to sustain livestock. The fire dangers were unreal as we witness on the west coast in living color. I have never seen all surface water evaporate in my 57 years here.

That was just a horrible drought that lasted the better part of a decade here before moving on to throw other areas into ruins. Maybe you have to witness the devastation first hand to appreciate the seriousness and to wonder what life will be like is such events become larger in number and longer in duration. If places that grow our foods now are hit can other places seamlessly fill the vacuum? I'm not so sure.

 

If places that grow our foods now are hit can other places seamlessly fill the vacuum? I'm not so sure.

With so much reliance on the technical world utopia, many will have a hard time eating their smartphone! :xeye:

 

Do you think that noting climate change is PC BS, MCVet?

I do not bend over to be politically correct, although I do try and display your normal healthy level of respect to others.

 

Nope! It's been a natural occurring challenge for hundreds/thousands/millions of years. The PC BS is that "man" has the ability to change it .... like turning a fan on to reverse the effects of a 90 mph wind.
While in our hast to enjoy the fruits of our experiments we have willingly trashed a lot, but by no means do we have any power over climate change! Only the ability to modify our own choices and requirements in the face of it!

 

I recall trying to grow peas in the drought with soaker hoses.

First off after the first year of drought that gripped this area there were no seed peas of the varieties developed for this area to be bought. The same drought killed the seed crop that made ir all but impossible to grow them when I had seed peas.

I tried two years running water bills as high as $300 per month. The few peas that I managed to harvest were not enough to freeze. We just ate them fresh. Saving some back to plant next year was out of the question if we had been depending on that crop to survive.

You can fight mother nature. She will always come out on top, though.

 

Yeh, been there this year and last .... but will have to see what next year throws at us! :upsidedown:

 

A couple of decades ago, I took a college class called historical geology. The class studied the changes (and the causes) in Earth's climate over very long periods of time, and provides perspective on how big and how nasty mother nature can dish it out.

I will summarize the important parts.

The Earth has been in a Geologic and climatic era know as the Pliestocene for the last couple of million years. During this era, the Earth's climate has been bouncing back and forth between long periods of ice age conditions, and much shorter periods of warm interglacial conditions. The fundamental causes of the Plistocene are massive geologic structures (such as the location of the continent of Antarctica, and the existence of the Isthmus of Panama) and as long as these still exist, the Plistocene will continue. No one can tell you exactly when, but Earth's climate will slide into another ice age.

We have pretty good climate data from ice cores showing us the temperature and the atmospheric gas mixture over the last 420,000 yrs. During this time, the Earth experienced four ice ages of around 80-100,000 yrs and four interglacials of around 12-20,000 yrs. We are currently about 13,000 yrs into the current interglacial. If you look closely at the ice core data, it shows that very late in an interglacial, global temps and precipitation patterns start become erratic and swing widely. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Human causation is not required for mother nature to kick your ass. It has been happening for millions of years and it will continue. The only question in my mind is when, how bad, and where should I move to survive these changes.

I have frequently offered this advise to folks here, move east of the dry line (Interstate 35) and south of Des Moines (Interstate 80). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tor_alley_lg.gif

 

Yes. The cause is immaterial and it really doesn't matter what we do, or do not do now to try and affect it. That is not the point at all.

 

Lemme see if I have this conversation correct.

Side one: climate change is happening, what are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, it's a natural progression of our earth

Side one: it doesn't matter why it's happening, what are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, its a natural progression of our earth

Side one: Yeah! That's what I said. And it doesn't matter why. Now. What are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, it is a natural progression of our earth

Side one: *face palm*

 

Lemme see if I have this conversation correct.

Side one: climate change is happening, what are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, it's a natural progression of our earth

Side one: it doesn't matter why it's happening, (although man is still to blame)what are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, its a natural progression of our earth (and nobody said we weren't prepping for it)
Side one: Yeah! That's what I said. (except man is still to blame)And it doesn't matter why. Now. What are you doing to prepare?

Side two: climate change is not man made, it is a natural progression of our earth( and isn't prepping by defn a natural hedge against climate change???....oh crap why bother!!!! its still not sinking in)
Side one: *face palm*

Side Two...double face palm

There I fixed for you!:thumb:

 

Climate change is happening!
Yeah, the climate changes all the time. What else is new.

What are you doing to prepare?
It would help if climate scientists were able to correctly predict future changes so we might have a clue what to expect.

But since climate science was taken over by a bunch of low brow liberals, who understand neither science nor the climate, we don't have any usable climate models.

Personally, I decided to prepare for a colder and drier climate, and a complete failure of the intensive agricultural system used by most of the world. I retired, bought a ranch in an agricultural area that I believe will be less affected by this change, and I cached several years worth of food.

I current raise chicken, ducks, and California red sheep.

What have you done?

 

2014 Earth's warmest year on record; December 2014 record warm; Global oceans also record warm for 2014

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/global/201412

If the available arable areas are hit in the future years things are going to be very different.

 

2014 Earth's warmest year on record; December 2014 record warm; Global oceans also record warm for 2014

If the available arable areas are hit in the future years things are going to be very different.

We'll have to see with conflicting information out there?

Considering there's a lot of money invested into emerging markets to make them profitable. Though I'd love to see them really work, the possibilities are presently profit driven and failing!

"They also know that calculating so-called global average temperatures to hundredths of a degree is irrational. After all, there is very little data for the 70 percent of Earth’s surface that is ocean. There is also little data for mountainous and desert regions, not to mention the Antarctic. Much of the coverage is so sparse that NASA is forced to make the ridiculous claim that regions are adequately covered if there is a temperature-sensing station within nearly 750 miles. This is the distance between Ottawa, Canada, and Myrtle Beach, S.C. cities with very different climates. Yet, according to NASA, only one temperature sensing station is necessary for the two cities and the vast area between them to be adequately represented in their network."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/23/tom-harris-global-warming-deceptive-temperature-re/

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/n...6/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/