Sandra mentions above that the main problem is Overpopulation and all other issues come from this one. But the main one is really EDUCATION. Overpopulation is a consequence of lack of education in the world.

An educated society will know how to balance the world’s population, how to combat poverty, what hurts the environment and what doesn’t, and among many other things, an educated society will bring peace to the world by integrating all the positive aspects that unite us as a planet instead of focusing on our differences.

I believe we have wasted so many valuable resources and time in unnecessary wars and destruction that could have been avoided if people were educated enough to be open to other cultures, other political ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. But the leaders who selfishly desire a world domination are also promoting the same behavior on their populations. And so we’re taking steps backwards.

We take steps backwards when our country puts more importance on military power than on educational strength. We take steps backwards when our economical system helps a few companies dominate all the corners of the world rather than helping promote regional growth on companies that focus on the improvement of their local communities.

How can a population be prepared to open businesses, to generate jobs, to create the new inventions the world needs to move forward if our political leaders continue cutting the budgets for education and research? Without education our society will become a burden rather than a powerful contributor to the world.

Well, my point is clear. We need more and more education; you can never have an over educated society. All the best.

Ricardo

Sandra mentions above that the main problem is Overpopulation and all other issues come from this one. But the main one is really EDUCATION. Overpopulation is a consequence of lack of education in the world.

An educated society will know how to balance the world’s population, how to combat poverty, what hurts the environment and what doesn’t, and among many other things, an educated society will bring peace to the world by integrating all the positive aspects that unite us as a planet instead of focusing on our differences.

I believe we have wasted so many valuable resources and time in unnecessary wars and destruction that could have been avoided if people were educated enough to be open to other cultures, other political ideologies, religious beliefs, etc. But the leaders who selfishly desire a world domination are also promoting the same behavior on their populations. And so we’re taking steps backwards.

We take steps backwards when our country puts more importance on military power than on educational strength. We take steps backwards when our economical system helps a few companies dominate all the corners of the world rather than helping promote regional growth on companies that focus on the improvement of their local communities.

How can a population be prepared to open businesses, to generate jobs, to create the new inventions the world needs to move forward if our political leaders continue cutting the budgets for education and research? Without education our society will become a burden rather than a powerful contributor to the world.

Well, my point is clear. We need more and more education; you can never have an over educated society. All the best.

Ricardo

100-300 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the day, CO2 was 3-5 times current levels. It was 400-500 million years ago when the CO2 levels were at the 15-20x level you mention, and I doubt the plant and animal life resembled the world we live in today.

According to Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University:

“We know from looking at much older climate records that large and rapid increase in CO2 in the past, (about 55 million years ago) caused large extinction in bottom-dwelling ocean creatures, and dissolved a lot of shells as the ocean became acidic,” he said. “We’re heading in that direction now.”

I’m not so sure we need a mass extinction of species at this point in time.

As to more recent history, over the last 2.1 million years peak CO2 levels have averaged only 280 parts per million. At today’s CO2 level of about 385 parts per million, that’s a 38% increase, with the vast majority coming from burning fossil fuels.

Will the earth survive increasing levels of CO2, of course, we’re just not sure what sort of plant and animal mix will ultimately be here to enjoy it…maybe the dinosaurs will make a comeback!

100-300 million years ago, when dinosaurs ruled the day, CO2 was 3-5 times current levels. It was 400-500 million years ago when the CO2 levels were at the 15-20x level you mention, and I doubt the plant and animal life resembled the world we live in today.

According to Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University:

“We know from looking at much older climate records that large and rapid increase in CO2 in the past, (about 55 million years ago) caused large extinction in bottom-dwelling ocean creatures, and dissolved a lot of shells as the ocean became acidic,” he said. “We’re heading in that direction now.”

I’m not so sure we need a mass extinction of species at this point in time.

As to more recent history, over the last 2.1 million years peak CO2 levels have averaged only 280 parts per million. At today’s CO2 level of about 385 parts per million, that’s a 38% increase, with the vast majority coming from burning fossil fuels.

Will the earth survive increasing levels of CO2, of course, we’re just not sure what sort of plant and animal mix will ultimately be here to enjoy it…maybe the dinosaurs will make a comeback!

Thanks for the nice reply.

“Should the United States, through military action, remove those individuals?”

That’s the rub, you know? Power is intoxicating so I’m not sure what peaceful methods could be used to get rid of them, and their cronies, and replace them with something beneficial to their people. Giving them billions of dollars through some kind of climate apology certainly won’t do it and it won’t help the people. I’m sure though that the money they receive would be a great boon to the “We Build Palaces” industry.

“As to climate change…”
Check with your local commercial greenhouse and ask why they boost CO2 as high as they do. Check the CO2 measurements inside most buildings and note how much higher it is than outside. Check with NASA and ask why the satellites show green biomass increasing significantly as CO2 increases. Check with all the peer-reviewed papers which say doubling CO2 will increase plant yields by 30-60% (that’s crops, forests might see even higher increases.)

So no, I don’t believe the Gore driven CO2 scare stories. I think CO2 is blamed since it’s the by-product of all combustion so it’s a proxy for saying “pollution” and “fossil fuel use is bad.” Remember you basic science classes? How much research went into the facts that CO2 is an essential part of the eco-system? The Gore crowd hasn’t made a case for reversing that.

There are also papers showing that various critters are expanding their rangers as it warms. Warmth isn’t the limiting factor to species range, cold is. Check the Medieval Warm Period and note where they were growing crops (there’s a reason it’s called “Green”land.)

The Antartctic ice cap is getting thicker and the Arctic ice cap has put on a lot of ice since the 2007 low point. But you might want to check this paper on low ice: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf Note the remarks about radical climate changes.

Nasa has stated that the ice loss in the Arctic was due to clyclic weather conditions, not global warming.

As for acidification, well, there seems to be no there, there. Given that CO2 has been as high as 15-20x today’s level, and life flourished, acidification seems to me to be just another Al Goreism. Note – I’m not saying anything here about pollution or other real issues.

“Action toward all of these issues is critical, but at this point I don’t see that happening…”

I think some of the “actions” some people want to take are 180 degree ouit of phase with reality. In one of your articles you criticize Ms. Palin for suggesting that Mr. Obama should have boycotted Copenhagen. I agree with her. In my opinion Copenhagen was entirely for the benefit of carbon traders (you’ve read about the huge CT fraud in Europe?) and to provide third world dictators with huge slush funds for for whatever impoverishment projects (CastleBuilders R Us?) they had in mind.

Adaption to whatever climate change brings (warm or cold) would be a vastly more effective way to help people (and plants and critters) than would making the CT guys rich(er.) It would probably also push technology, which, as NASA has so amply demonstrated, is a good thing.

My point is that there ARE ways to help people that don’t involve heavy handed measures that will drag/shove them further down. Let’s get past the incredible greed and power lust of the Copenhagen crowd and, as you said, try to develop real solutions.

Thanks for the nice reply.

“Should the United States, through military action, remove those individuals?”

That’s the rub, you know? Power is intoxicating so I’m not sure what peaceful methods could be used to get rid of them, and their cronies, and replace them with something beneficial to their people. Giving them billions of dollars through some kind of climate apology certainly won’t do it and it won’t help the people. I’m sure though that the money they receive would be a great boon to the “We Build Palaces” industry.

“As to climate change…”
Check with your local commercial greenhouse and ask why they boost CO2 as high as they do. Check the CO2 measurements inside most buildings and note how much higher it is than outside. Check with NASA and ask why the satellites show green biomass increasing significantly as CO2 increases. Check with all the peer-reviewed papers which say doubling CO2 will increase plant yields by 30-60% (that’s crops, forests might see even higher increases.)

So no, I don’t believe the Gore driven CO2 scare stories. I think CO2 is blamed since it’s the by-product of all combustion so it’s a proxy for saying “pollution” and “fossil fuel use is bad.” Remember you basic science classes? How much research went into the facts that CO2 is an essential part of the eco-system? The Gore crowd hasn’t made a case for reversing that.

There are also papers showing that various critters are expanding their rangers as it warms. Warmth isn’t the limiting factor to species range, cold is. Check the Medieval Warm Period and note where they were growing crops (there’s a reason it’s called “Green”land.)

The Antartctic ice cap is getting thicker and the Arctic ice cap has put on a lot of ice since the 2007 low point. But you might want to check this paper on low ice: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf Note the remarks about radical climate changes.

Nasa has stated that the ice loss in the Arctic was due to clyclic weather conditions, not global warming.

As for acidification, well, there seems to be no there, there. Given that CO2 has been as high as 15-20x today’s level, and life flourished, acidification seems to me to be just another Al Goreism. Note – I’m not saying anything here about pollution or other real issues.

“Action toward all of these issues is critical, but at this point I don’t see that happening…”

I think some of the “actions” some people want to take are 180 degree ouit of phase with reality. In one of your articles you criticize Ms. Palin for suggesting that Mr. Obama should have boycotted Copenhagen. I agree with her. In my opinion Copenhagen was entirely for the benefit of carbon traders (you’ve read about the huge CT fraud in Europe?) and to provide third world dictators with huge slush funds for for whatever impoverishment projects (CastleBuilders R Us?) they had in mind.

Adaption to whatever climate change brings (warm or cold) would be a vastly more effective way to help people (and plants and critters) than would making the CT guys rich(er.) It would probably also push technology, which, as NASA has so amply demonstrated, is a good thing.

My point is that there ARE ways to help people that don’t involve heavy handed measures that will drag/shove them further down. Let’s get past the incredible greed and power lust of the Copenhagen crowd and, as you said, try to develop real solutions.