molly

if you were from Minnesota I could understand your thread,but how do you
get cabin fever in California????

I came from the Global warming side nonsense, education and questioning changes everything. Try reading what I wrote, then taking your own advice and reading of that science and in the meantime. Unless you can refute anything I stated, you know about the west increasing polutants in China cause the WORLD IS GONNA END IF YOU DO IN THE WEST, and only in the west.
enjoy your ARk

It will not affect us so much as we are rich but shure if the world population doubles there will be more fights and wars about the recources on this planet so traveler will become more visa problems.

I don't think anyone has mentioned in here, over the past summer of travels, the 1 million who have entered Germany (not Europe, but Germany specifically because that is where they want to be).
I fully expected someone to mention having seen this recent migration during their travels.

Perhaps that movement was insignificant - not sufficiently massive and/or not sufficiently forced?
Time will tell.


Hans Rosling has a very concise argument for why the population will not double.
Nevertheless, the fight for resources will continue if only in lieu of the earlier battles for living space into which tribes can expand - some historians say that was why the Zulu engaged the British in battle.
The Zulu Rubicon was crossed, in the Zulu mind at least.

__________________
Dave

Well but thats not because of clima change but because of money reasons.
While the people could live in peace in many other countrys as well they chose to migrate to germany because in Germany they will not only get a flat and food for free but also more cache money and children money and old peoples care etc. then they would earn while working in their home countrys or somewere else.

Right now they are building thousends of new houses for imigrants. They never did this for homeles german people.

The german governmet sees it selfe as the middle of the world but has forgotten how small Germany actually is and that they will not be able to feed everyone, if the news of free money spreads through all of Africa and Asia.

Ah and most importend: While the Government invited the people to come its not them who will have to pay for the costs of all the imigrants but its the small working german population who allready pays for Greece, Irland, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Romania etc. because nowbody ever asked them. The German depts are 80% of the tax income per year or 26.816 Euro per german citizen and rising. Now houses of imigrants are burning...

It's one of the reasons we want to jump ship and move somewhere else. Europe isn't big enough any longer. It's not the actual space available but the small mindedness of the people (and politicians) living there.
We no longer desire a nice big house/car/TV and paycheck to pay for it all. We want to be, or at least feel free, to do what we want and be happy.

One can only be expected to listen so much choral harmony before reaching for the knobkerie.

Andy

The troops who faught at Rorke's Drift were, mainly, from the Royal Warwickshire Regt albeit they had recruited a goodly proportion of Welsh choristers to their ranks.

Later, as part of regt amalgamations and the like, the regt of Warwickshires became the South Wales Borderers; I suppose that was enough to justify the amount of singing in the movie of 1963.

__________________
Dave

It's simple use of the English language.

Denier-noun
A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:


Natural climate change is a fact (the area of debate is the level of mans influence on the process). Statements posted claiming the contrary would make the poster a denier


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where?
The term is over used and rarely ever applies as the main argument of the supposed "Deniers" is simply man is not the primary effect as other factors are involved. Thus making it nonsense put forth to push a political agenda, nothing more.

Use of any language is far from simple, even if that is the honest intention on the part of some.

As for the "settled science" line of argument; it is just that = a line of argument, nay propoganda even, to be disseminated at each and every opportunity. Any self respecting scientist would consider this very idea to be utter tosh; an idol no less.
There are many who have demolished the settled science line in every facet; not least in the earlier references to blogs, particularly Ridleys', and websites.
I have to recognise that you do consistently stick to "natural" and steer away from the more controversial man-made version of the storyline.

So, junk science remains exactly that, junk, and those who perpetrate it could well be accused of denial of the search for truth, the end of the enlightened era and heralding the approach of a new dark ages.
A new "Spanish Inquisition" at the very least, while those in positions of power would rub their hands in glee.

__________________
Dave

Another derogatory comment

Please provide some evidence that natural climate change doesnt exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scientific understanding does and will change that is a fact and proven over and over again throughout history.

Throughout this post people seem to be confusing 3 separate issues

Natural Climatic Change - something that is established with significant scientific evidence

Outright denial of Climate Change of any type (climate change denial)

Skepticism - questioning current scientific, political and commercial arguments to make us more informed.

The deniers position that all the research and scientists are tied into to some huge conspiracy is simply ludicrous. It's just not the way the scientific world works

Unfortunately there are a lot of very eloquent people stood on their soapboxes shouting loudly and think that makes them an expert (not referring to anyone here) they range from nutters, journalists pseudo scientists. Most have little capability to back up their claims

Then you get the skeptics who will challenge politically funded research using science to ensure we are using fact to base our understanding of the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's easy to see why so many apparently deny the science, EXXON, Kosh Brothers, etc, spent untold millions on subversive propaganda campaigns - and only had to sell an idea that people already wanted to buy - that we don't have to change our lifestyles or reduce our impact on the physical world, we don't need to feel guilty because our actions don't really have consequences.

Even if we do collectively accept this, few are going to elect politicians whose manifesto is banning gas guzzling automobiles, or rationing red meat, etc and corporations are only motivated by short-term profit. I don't eat meat, it's the least I can do, but most people I meet won't change because 'it's tasty'.

In the States, the science of climate change became politicized, and like everything else, polarized. This has been disastrous really, with any concern for the planet being reduced to 'lefty crap' and anti-business.

Lastly, our media is owned and tightly ran by a small minority whose interests are very much in continuing the status quo, apparently at really any cost - plain old hubris or something more sinister?

To answer the OP, I think with climate change, resource wars and the serious knock on effects that will all have, ending RTW moto travel will be the least of our problems. Just the other day I read that globally we've got sixty years of arable top soil left. Sixty years! But as usual Al Qaeda 2.0 were dominating the hysterical media.

Have you ever worked with Scientists? They are fallible and subject to their own biased and bigotry which is unfortunately human nature.

Correct, on both sides of the Fence.
Most who tell me to read "Science" probably only listen to a blurb now and then on CNN or other nonsense type of programming and do not follow their own advice. It is merely a way of putting others down without having to back up their own statements.



Meat is how our brains were able to grow, why on earth would anyone quit eating it? Indeed we should research our consumption overall, and we should push for higher quality meat standards, that by no means is an excuse to go backwards in evolution.


BTW, how many of "Inconvenient truths" benchmarks have been made?