Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
This is a red herring. We have most of this sort of thing under control. People have learned (are learning) not to sh#t where they sleep. These are criminal activities.
How do you stop someone from making cars and fridges?
< I don't see your point about the cars or the fridges. The first can be made to be more environmentally friendly as they are trying with electric/hydrogen cars and the latter can be ran of cleaner energy such as solar power/wind .... If governments would invest more in these and other cleaner technologies then in the future I see no reason why we should be a slave to fossil fuels and the oil companies, and in order to get governments to invest in this, people can open their mouths and tell them to do it, instead of having a 'do as you wish, I don't care attitude'. But if your happy to have 'its a waste of time doing anything attitude', then fine, by all means have this. But this attitude has never achieved any positive change for anyone at anytime anywhere IMO. Therefore, I hope the majority of people do not share this attitude that you have.
With Metta
It may be that I do as much or more than you to help our globe stave off sure disaster ( sorry for this crack)....I certainly have expressed no "I do not care attitude" Look , I am talking about this issue while I am next to my recycling bin ... New technologies are fine but we cannot ( and the Chinese will not) count on them today. Today we have fossil fuel only. I prefer to discuss viable options while you suggest futuristic technology. Cars and fridges, air conditioners make life worth living. They require fossil fuels to function. The people in the world who do not have them (most ) , want them. How do we allow them to have these items while still controlling CO2 emissions? I do not see a way.
It may be that I do as much or more than you to help our globe stave off sure disaster ( sorry for this crack)....I certainly have expressed no "I do not care attitude" Look , I am talking about this issue while I am next to my recycling bin ... New technologies are fine but we cannot ( and the Chinese will not) count on them today. Today we have fossil fuel only. I prefer to discuss viable options while you suggest futuristic technology. Cars and fridges, air conditioners make life worth living. They require fossil fuels to function. The people in the world who do not have them (most ) , want them. How do we allow them to have these items while still controlling CO2 emissions? I do not see a way.
As I travel more and more around the U.S. and Canadian West, the number of wind turbines I see is sometimes startling. There's also a huge new solar panel field powering much of the US Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs. Neither of those is a fossil fuel.
As I travel more and more around the U.S. and Canadian West, the number of wind turbines I see is sometimes startling. There's also a huge new solar panel field powering much of the US Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs. Neither of those is a fossil fuel.
It is not the generation capability , it's the storage. The wind does not always blow. Battery technology is not ready in spite of your anecdotal attestation. If it were not for government subsidies, there would be no residential use of solar ( except passive solar like cement cisterns for water heating which are a mainstay in the third world). I look forward to a time when we can store these types energy but that time is not now.
It is not the generation capability , it's the storage. The wind does not always blow. Battery technology is not ready in spite of your anecdotal attestation. If it were not for government subsidies, there would be no residential use of solar ( except passive solar like cement cisterns for water heating which are a mainstay in the third world). I look forward to a time when we can store these types energy but that time is not now.
Of course the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, but gee it's so easy burning that sulfurous coal. And to heck with the pollution.
I am looking for an alternative not sarcasm... We live here and now not in the world of cheap, non polluting batteries. The heavy metals which go into the latest batteries are not a very good way to go, and their storage capacity and life make them unacceptable. Not "to heck with pollution' but rather I am looking for a viable, realistic solution. Fossil fuels are the ONLY way at present. We( in the West) have a handle on pollution. Perhaps you are young, and do not understand how things were forty years ago. We have come a long way...
I am looking for an alternative not sarcasm... We live here and now not in the world of cheap, non polluting batteries. The heavy metals which go into the latest batteries are not a very good way to go, and their storage capacity and life make them unacceptable. Not "to heck with pollution' but rather I am looking for a viable, realistic solution. Fossil fuels are the ONLY way at present. We( in the West) have a handle on pollution. Perhaps you are young, and do not understand how things were forty years ago. We have come a long way...
And you think reliance on foreign energy sources and open pit mining of coal is the way to go? And no, I'm not young...possibly older than you...but I feel you should create the future, rather than letting the past control you.
It may be that I do as much or more than you to help our globe stave off sure disaster ( sorry for this crack)....I certainly have expressed no "I do not care attitude" Look , I am talking about this issue while I am next to my recycling bin ... New technologies are fine but we cannot ( and the Chinese will not) count on them today. Today we have fossil fuel only. I prefer to discuss viable options while you suggest futuristic technology. Cars and fridges, air conditioners make life worth living. They require fossil fuels to function. The people in the world who do not have them (most ) , want them. How do we allow them to have these items while still controlling CO2 emissions? I do not see a way.
I happy to hear that you do recycle, it suggests that your care free attitude is just a front, and deep down you really do care about doing something in your own way to make this world a nicer place to live. By the way we do not have just fossil fuels today, solar/wind/nuclear/tidal/hydroelectric dams all play a significant part in our power demands, and these are not futuristic technologies, these are todays technologies, what is required is that more funding goes into the cleanest of these to try and make it more efficient and lower cost, and again the governments of this world need to ensure that this research is at the forefront via funding to make that happen.
By the way we do not have just fossil fuels today, solar/wind/nuclear/tidal/hydroelectric dams all play a significant part in our power demands, and these are not futuristic technologies, these are todays technologies, what is required is that more funding goes into the cleanest of these to try and make it more efficient and lower cost, and again the governments of this world need to ensure that this research is at the forefront via funding to make that happen.
(If these are)Facts: (snip) Responses we can take in worst case scenarios: Move back from the shore when the water rises Find places on the earth which benefit from climate change(warmer climate= better crop yield) and plant there Continue to expound the virtues of conservation
Responses I will not take: Worry Force anyone to live in a manner other than the one they choose ( barring criminal behavior) Assert man is destroying or will destroy the earth Teach my children to fear a media generated , knee jerk , specter which the global warming movement asserts and propagates.
First, do some real rethinking of your suggested responses. None of them will even begin to work, especially the thinking that millions of people can pack up and move away from rising waters or perform some sort of mass migration to the oasis that remains. We already have a name for populations displaced by natural disaster or war, it's "permanent refugee status". The people hanging on to their lives and property will always resist the wave of immigrants. Always. The best they can hope for is to end up in refugee camps living in mud and standing in line for charity. And those areas that suddenly start getting rainfall and capable of growing crops? Don't you think the nations that own those areas and the businesses that own the property will have their own idea about you deciding to invite yourself in?
No, there are billions of people on this Earth and the days of just packing up and moving to a better place are over. All the "better places" are already taken. I've said before, the problem is, humanity is not going to suddenly turn off their cars and power plants and go back to living in caves. All we can do is be aware future generations are going to be living in a different world.
Oh, and people and businesses are "forced to live in a manner other than the one they choose" all the time. It's called environmental laws to minimize the impact of unavoidable pollution. It's how we're living in cities now.
First, do some real rethinking of your suggested responses. None of them will even begin to work, especially the thinking that millions of people can pack up and move away from rising waters or perform some sort of mass migration to the oasis that remains. We already have a name for populations displaced by natural disaster or war, it's "permanent refugee status". The people hanging on to their lives and property will always resist the wave of immigrants. Always. The best they can hope for is to end up in refugee camps living in mud and standing in line for charity. And those areas that suddenly start getting rainfall and capable of growing crops? Don't you think the nations that own those areas and the businesses that own the property will have their own idea about you deciding to invite yourself in?
No, there are billions of people on this Earth and the days of just packing up and moving to a better place are over. All the "better places" are already taken. I've said before, the problem is, humanity is not going to suddenly turn off their cars and power plants and go back to living in caves. All we can do is be aware future generations are going to be living in a different world.
Oh, and people and businesses are "forced to live in a manner other than the one they choose" all the time. It's called environmental laws to minimize the impact of unavoidable pollution. It's how we're living in cities now.
The "truthers" bless their hearts, are the people who claim that Chomsky is some sort of CIA operative, a left-wing (gate-keeper) because he gets a pay check from the CIA for working at MIT university. Be warned!! lol
sigh.
So just listen to what he has to say, it's significant.
To be balanced I have a right-wing christian friend who all out denies global warming because he read a book denying global warming. When I said that it seems like 99% of scientists/climatologists believe it's happening and it's man made he said it's bullshit.
Right after that he said 'have you ever seen like documentaries where they show iceburgs melting disintigrating? Well that happens all the time..
lol
I wonder if we can get ourselves together as real 'truthers' here at NB and find out the truth of the matters.
By the way we do not have just fossil fuels today, solar/wind/nuclear/tidal/hydroelectric dams all play a significant part in our power demands
Hydroelectric is an environmental and social *disaster* of the highest order. Always has been. It's only been in the past few years that we've begun to admit just how bad. Ask anyone whose village or farm was subsumed by a new lake how great it is. Ask anyone in fisheries how great it is. Of course the Chinese think it's wonderful, in the same way they think nothing of dumping any chemical they feel like into their rivers and oceans, and dumping whatever comes out the stack into the air. If you've been to China in the past 25 years, you've seen that disaster.
Solar, tidal, and wind all combined don't amount to a perceptible fraction of the total energy output of the world. It's so tiny as to almost be vanishing. It's getting bigger, and it's wonderful, but right now it's insignificant on a world-wide scale.
Nuclear - do we need to go there after Chernobyl and the earthquake in Japan? Do you want nuclear waste stored in your neighborhood? Didn't think so. How about transported by road or rail through your town every week? Didn't think so.
@Mountains I agree with you overall, I was just highlighting that fossil fuels are not the only source of energy currently in the mix. As I said I agree with the points your making thats why I said more funding should go into making the cleanest of these solar/wind etc more efficient and more financially accessible to the masses.
Indeed. And the oil and coal industries are too myopic to see that if they would invest heavily in those emerging segments, they'd stand to make even more than the giga-profits they're making now on oil. But they're too dumb to see that. If I were the CEO of an oil company, I'd be putting every penny I could into every alternative I could lay my hands on, knowing that 1) oil *will* run out, and 2) that one or the other of the alternatives will pay off big at some point. But it probably won't be in our lifetimes, so to hell with it. Crank up the pumps!!
Indeed. And the oil and coal industries are too myopic to see that if they would invest heavily in those emerging segments, they'd stand to make even more than the giga-profits they're making now on oil. But they're too dumb to see that. If I were the CEO of an oil company, I'd be putting every penny I could into every alternative I could lay my hands on, knowing that 1) oil *will* run out, and 2) that one or the other of the alternatives will pay off big at some point. But it probably won't be in our lifetimes, so to hell with it. Crank up the pumps!!
Must a baker always be a baker/ Why do oil companies need to see this but not a tech firm or a home builder? I understand your logic : oil co in power business , but couldn't what you said apply to any investor?
Must a baker always be a baker/ Why do oil companies need to see this but not a tech firm or a home builder? I understand your logic : oil co in power business , but couldn't what you said apply to any investor?
Open to every investor, of course.
But, power companies do have the mega-money needed to invest in this technology. And, they have a vested interest in doing so since fossil fuels are becoming somewhat depleted and much of what's left is more difficult and more expensive to extract. And they have an understanding and infrastructure for the transmission of energy.
Must a baker always be a baker/ Why do oil companies need to see this but not a tech firm or a home builder? I understand your logic : oil co in power business , but couldn't what you said apply to any investor?
Open to every investor, of course.
But, power companies do have the mega-money needed to invest in this technology. And, they have a vested interest in doing so since fossil fuels are becoming somewhat depleted and much of what's left is more difficult and more expensive to extract. And they have an understanding and infrastructure for the transmission of energy.
So everyone who has $ is stupid if he does not invest in ' alternative " energy?
Though fossil fuels are " harder to extract," they are still cheaper than other forms today. I await the advent of new battery technology. Have you seen the gigantic ,plastic encased, chemical cocktails they use in the new cars? They are scary. Full of dark matter and poison which can not enter the landfill.They are short lived and the manufactures will not tell the consumer how much they cost. Very shady dealings in this "green' sphere. Till the storage capacity improves, we are going nowhere with wind and solar.Until drilling technology improves, the same can be said for large scale geo- thermal( besides, what will large scale extraction at source do to the temperature of this globe? : "The sky is ( might ) fall(ing)!)
Having a geophysicist for a father and having studied alot of geologic history books i can say the earth has been heating up since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years before coal and gassoline was burning and has continued to heat up exponentially since then. There is geologic evidence to say that this has happened many times over in the last 20 million years.
Green house gasses will cause temperature changes in laboritories. However to say that man is causing climate change right now i find hard to prove. The evidence to support that is only correllative and speculative. And difficult to separate the processes of the earth's natural changes and the effects of man made pollutants.
I think alot of hype aught not to assume that even if it is man made that global warming is necessarily a bad thing or that it will lead to the extinctions of many species. During the triassic period the land that is now alaska was farther north than it is now but its climate at the time was warmer than florida is now. That period of time in geological history is one of the most flourishing and lively to be recorded.
I still however believe there aught to be an emmissions tax because i still believe carbon emmissions may still cause climate change but they are also undenyably unhealthy for any oxygen breathing life forms.
I dont think it is a hoax but i certainly think it is a concern world leaders and industrialists aught to take very seriously and work towards a serious solution to all forms of industrial pollution.
When 98% of the world's climate scientists agree that while global climate change is a natural phenomenon, but the rate at which the change is taking place (increasing exponentially) is unprecedented in the scientific historical record, I'm inclined to take that as pretty solid, convincing evidence. If it were 90% or 75%, I might be more skeptical. But 98% of them agree that man's use of fossil fuels is directly responsible.
I'm just not willing to risk the planet's future on the remote possibility that they're wrong.
It's nice that plants and lizards flourished in Alaska a zillion years ago. But what does that fact do to help the suffering of the billions of people who will starve to death, be flooded out of their homes, etc with ever more rapid climate change now? Ask the people of Tuvalu or the Seychelles how good that makes them feel.
Tuvalu people are going to make a killing on this whole thing as they play the victim card . I can just see them now trying to figure out how to cash in on their victim status. I say help them relocate but not one penny for dikes. Or will the left use them as the new poster children for climate change... I cannot wait to see the children of the island,posed, standing in water knee deep in their former huts ( staged of course because they already should have the high ground)asking for foreign aid and all the well meaning but misguided rock stars lining up to "save " them. They need to move if the waters rise. "Billions " stave to death? Come on. Hey, on the reverse of this, is there a marked devaluation of beach front property , worldwide, occurring? I think not.
Follow the money Mountains. What is better for climate scientist business; Who, twenty years ago, paid any attention to a climate scientist? Business is very good now.
Lol yeah all those climate scientists rolling in cash, while the poor oil executives are starving.
Follow the money Mountains. What is better for climate scientist business; 1) Jungobootz argument or 2) Chicken Little syndrome...
Who, twenty years ago, paid any attention to a climate scientist? Business is very good now.
Indeed. Climate scientists are just rolling in the dough.
Yes those horrible climate scientists exposing the lovely peaceful caring oil companies and trying to promote that terrible clean sustainable energy. :skeptic:
Come on, would you rather have climate scientists rolling in the dough (which I doubt is the case) or the oil companies (who make huge profits from polluting and exploiting the earth and destroying our environment, ecosystems and wildlife). Just think about it :scratch:
Tuvalu people are going to make a killing on this whole thing as they play the victim card . I can just see them now trying to figure out how to cash in on their victim status. I say help them relocate but not one penny for dikes. Or will the left use them as the new poster children for climate change... I cannot wait to see the children of the island,posed, standing in water knee deep in their former huts ( staged of course because they already should have the high ground)asking for foreign aid and all the well meaning but misguided rock stars lining up to "save " them. They need to move if the waters rise. "Billions " stave to death? Come on. Hey, on the reverse of this, is there a marked devaluation of beach front property , worldwide, occurring? I think not.
This post is a bizarre mixture of stupidity and cruelty.
I agree @Daozen, this is a really nasty and cynical view that @sndymorn has about the people who will be most affected by climate change. I wonder if @sndymorn would still have this view if it were their life and livelihood that was going to be affected so much by climate change. I somehow think not.
Tuvalu people are going to make a killing on this whole thing as they play the victim card . I can just see them now trying to figure out how to cash in on their victim status.
I have to agree. That may be the single dumbest statement I've read on NB in a long time. Heartless, cruel, and dumb. And probably racist if you get down to it.
There is nothing clichéd or left about what I said, its a basic understanding of others plights and problems, and then showing compassion towards them, as opposed to your cynical mocking of their predicament.
I do not mock these people living on a "low lying atoll." I see a problem: sea water invasion for instance and offer a reasonable solution -move , with the loving help of the world community. Please do not gush on about saving their culture. We will save their lives first by moving them . Culture travels well. They have been offered favored immigration status by other nations already. The leaders of the people there will wallow in this because they themselves will benefit; just as you will wallow in it for your self perception that you are doing the compassionate thing. I believe the world community in offering immigration opportunities, demonstrates great compassion. Please belay using the race card , such an old saw... I did not say climate scientists were getting rich, just making hay while the sun (doesn't) shine(s). They are benefitting from the discourse and therefore are biased in favor of worst case thinking. This is human nature. Their lock -step agreement (according to Mountains) troubles me. There are many scientist capable of understanding this difficult issue whom disagree with them. Check into the political aspects of Tuvalu leadership to see if or not advantage is being taken of their plight. Any argument about this subject should avoid statement like "billions will starve." Such hyperbole can be countered with statements like" global warming will be good for the planet and Greenland will soon be the wheat basket of the world ' Both extremes are ridiculous. Every time somebody mentions oil companies it is as if they themselves have no culpability in the use of their product. We are the oil company. Sustainable energy, while a lovely idea, is not here today. Let us deal with the here and now. Until we figure out a way to store the energy produced , the new production methods are not viable. If the price of beach front property (worldwide) is not dropping ( this statement comes from my advise to follow the money) , why not? Even low lying, Florida is experiencing a rise in prices at the beach.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited October 2011
Even if Global Warming was to have some positive effect on certain climates there's the huge issue of disruption. Our infrastructure and societies are built upon the current model of climate. If a large section of Canada became better for agriculture while a smaller section of Texas became arid desert I think this change would have a sizeable negative economic disruption.
Moving an entire island nation of people may save their lives but countries only have so much ability to absorb these refugees before the stresses get to the country. A 1.5 meter sea level rise would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh. I've got a spare room, I could take a couple, can you handle the other 16,999,998 sndymorn?
Disruption: will billions starve as Mountains suggest? Positing where and what impact this event might have : canada gain and texas loses, is profound supposition. I do not suggest move of whole island, only those people directly affected by sea water. Tuvalu economy is in a mess unrelated to climate issues. So too Bangladesh. As much as I feel for those poor unfortunates, their lives have been miserable for as long as I can remember... That they must move back from the encroaching water would be evident to all as it will occur (if it does ) slowly. The responsibility to help them will, as it has in the past, fall on the world community. They were starving thirty years ago, they are starving now, and with or with out climate change , they will stare in the future. I did my part to help in the past and will continue in the future but do not need climate change as rallying cry.
Whew... boy oh boy. So calling a racist a racist is "name calling" now. Love it. Just love it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, as my grandmother used to say.
Comments
I don't see your point about the cars or the fridges. The first can be made to be more environmentally friendly as they are trying with electric/hydrogen cars and the latter can be ran of cleaner energy such as solar power/wind .... If governments would invest more in these and other cleaner technologies then in the future I see no reason why we should be a slave to fossil fuels and the oil companies, and in order to get governments to invest in this, people can open their mouths and tell them to do it, instead of having a 'do as you wish, I don't care attitude'. But if your happy to have 'its a waste of time doing anything attitude', then fine, by all means have this. But this attitude has never achieved any positive change for anyone at anytime anywhere IMO. Therefore, I hope the majority of people do not share this attitude that you have.
With Metta
It may be that I do as much or more than you to help our globe stave off sure disaster ( sorry for this crack)....I certainly have expressed no "I do not care attitude" Look , I am talking about this issue while I am next to my recycling bin ...
New technologies are fine but we cannot ( and the Chinese will not) count on them today. Today we have fossil fuel only.
I prefer to discuss viable options while you suggest futuristic technology.
Cars and fridges, air conditioners make life worth living. They require fossil fuels to function. The people in the world who do not have them (most ) , want them. How do we allow them to have these items while still controlling CO2 emissions?
I do not see a way.
As I travel more and more around the U.S. and Canadian West, the number of wind turbines I see is sometimes startling. There's also a huge new solar panel field powering much of the US Air Force Academy near Colorado Springs. Neither of those is a fossil fuel.
It is not the generation capability , it's the storage. The wind does not always blow. Battery technology is not ready in spite of your anecdotal attestation.
If it were not for government subsidies, there would be no residential use of solar ( except passive solar like cement cisterns for water heating which are a mainstay in the third world).
I look forward to a time when we can store these types energy but that time is not now.
We live here and now not in the world of cheap, non polluting batteries.
The heavy metals which go into the latest batteries are not a very good way to go, and their storage capacity and life make them unacceptable.
Not "to heck with pollution' but rather I am looking for a viable, realistic solution. Fossil fuels are the ONLY way at present.
We( in the West) have a handle on pollution. Perhaps you are young, and do not understand how things were forty years ago. We have come a long way...
By the way we do not have just fossil fuels today, solar/wind/nuclear/tidal/hydroelectric dams all play a significant part in our power demands, and these are not futuristic technologies, these are todays technologies, what is required is that more funding goes into the cleanest of these to try and make it more efficient and lower cost, and again the governments of this world need to ensure that this research is at the forefront via funding to make that happen.
No, there are billions of people on this Earth and the days of just packing up and moving to a better place are over. All the "better places" are already taken. I've said before, the problem is, humanity is not going to suddenly turn off their cars and power plants and go back to living in caves. All we can do is be aware future generations are going to be living in a different world.
Oh, and people and businesses are "forced to live in a manner other than the one they choose" all the time. It's called environmental laws to minimize the impact of unavoidable pollution. It's how we're living in cities now.
lol
sigh.
So just listen to what he has to say, it's significant.
Maybe I'll go back and read and look for their arguments I was just turned off by all the NWO videos.
Right after that he said 'have you ever seen like documentaries where they show iceburgs melting disintigrating? Well that happens all the time..
lol
I wonder if we can get ourselves together as real 'truthers' here at NB and find out the truth of the matters.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14768574
Solar, tidal, and wind all combined don't amount to a perceptible fraction of the total energy output of the world. It's so tiny as to almost be vanishing. It's getting bigger, and it's wonderful, but right now it's insignificant on a world-wide scale.
Nuclear - do we need to go there after Chernobyl and the earthquake in Japan? Do you want nuclear waste stored in your neighborhood? Didn't think so. How about transported by road or rail through your town every week? Didn't think so.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14452133
Must a baker always be a baker/
Why do oil companies need to see this but not a tech firm or a home builder?
I understand your logic : oil co in power business , but couldn't what you said apply to any investor?
But, power companies do have the mega-money needed to invest in this technology. And, they have a vested interest in doing so since fossil fuels are becoming somewhat depleted and much of what's left is more difficult and more expensive to extract. And they have an understanding and infrastructure for the transmission of energy.
Though fossil fuels are " harder to extract," they are still cheaper than other forms today.
I await the advent of new battery technology. Have you seen the gigantic ,plastic encased, chemical cocktails they use in the new cars? They are scary. Full of dark matter and poison which can not enter the landfill.They are short lived and the manufactures will not tell the consumer how much they cost. Very shady dealings in this "green' sphere.
Till the storage capacity improves, we are going nowhere with wind and solar.Until drilling technology improves, the same can be said for large scale geo- thermal( besides, what will large scale extraction at source do to the temperature of this globe? : "The sky is ( might ) fall(ing)!)
Green house gasses will cause temperature changes in laboritories. However to say that man is causing climate change right now i find hard to prove. The evidence to support that is only correllative and speculative. And difficult to separate the processes of the earth's natural changes and the effects of man made pollutants.
I think alot of hype aught not to assume that even if it is man made that global warming is necessarily a bad thing or that it will lead to the extinctions of many species. During the triassic period the land that is now alaska was farther north than it is now but its climate at the time was warmer than florida is now. That period of time in geological history is one of the most flourishing and lively to be recorded.
I still however believe there aught to be an emmissions tax because i still believe carbon emmissions may still cause climate change but they are also undenyably unhealthy for any oxygen breathing life forms.
I dont think it is a hoax but i certainly think it is a concern world leaders and industrialists aught to take very seriously and work towards a serious solution to all forms of industrial pollution.
I'm just not willing to risk the planet's future on the remote possibility that they're wrong.
It's nice that plants and lizards flourished in Alaska a zillion years ago. But what does that fact do to help the suffering of the billions of people who will starve to death, be flooded out of their homes, etc with ever more rapid climate change now? Ask the people of Tuvalu or the Seychelles how good that makes them feel.
1) Jungobootz argument
or
2) Chicken Little syndrome...
Who, twenty years ago, paid any attention to a climate scientist?
Business is very good now.
and all the well meaning but misguided rock stars lining up to "save " them.
They need to move if the waters rise.
"Billions " stave to death?
Come on.
Hey, on the reverse of this, is there a marked devaluation of beach front property , worldwide, occurring? I think not.
Come on, would you rather have climate scientists rolling in the dough (which I doubt is the case) or the oil companies (who make huge profits from polluting and exploiting the earth and destroying our environment, ecosystems and wildlife).
Just think about it :scratch:
So cliched
I see a problem: sea water invasion for instance and offer a reasonable solution -move , with the loving help of the world community. Please do not gush on about saving their culture. We will save their lives first by moving them . Culture travels well. They have been offered favored immigration status by other nations already. The leaders of the people there will wallow in this because they themselves will benefit; just as you will wallow in it for your self perception that you are doing the compassionate thing. I believe the world community in offering immigration opportunities, demonstrates great compassion. Please belay using the race card , such an old saw...
I did not say climate scientists were getting rich, just making hay while the sun (doesn't) shine(s). They are benefitting from the discourse and therefore are biased in favor of worst case thinking. This is human nature. Their lock -step agreement (according to Mountains) troubles me. There are many scientist capable of understanding this difficult issue whom disagree with them.
Check into the political aspects of Tuvalu leadership to see if or not advantage is being taken of their plight.
Any argument about this subject should avoid statement like "billions will starve." Such hyperbole can be countered with statements like" global warming will be good for the planet and Greenland will soon be the wheat basket of the world '
Both extremes are ridiculous.
Every time somebody mentions oil companies it is as if they themselves have no culpability in the use of their product. We are the oil company. Sustainable energy, while a lovely idea, is not here today. Let us deal with the here and now. Until we figure out a way to store the energy produced , the new production methods are not viable.
If the price of beach front property (worldwide) is not dropping ( this statement comes from my advise to follow the money) , why not? Even low lying, Florida is experiencing a rise in prices at the beach.
Moving an entire island nation of people may save their lives but countries only have so much ability to absorb these refugees before the stresses get to the country. A 1.5 meter sea level rise would displace 17 million people in Bangladesh. I've got a spare room, I could take a couple, can you handle the other 16,999,998 sndymorn?
Positing where and what impact this event might have : canada gain and texas loses, is profound supposition.
I do not suggest move of whole island, only those people directly affected by sea water. Tuvalu economy is in a mess unrelated to climate issues. So too Bangladesh. As much as I feel for those poor unfortunates, their lives have been miserable for as long as I can remember... That they must move back from the encroaching water would be evident to all as it will occur (if it does ) slowly. The responsibility to help them will, as it has in the past, fall on the world community.
They were starving thirty years ago, they are starving now, and with or with out climate change , they will stare in the future. I did my part to help in the past and will continue in the future but do not need climate change as rallying cry.