Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military (theguardian.com)
Citing military experts, The Guardian is reporting that if the rise in global warming is held under 2 degrees Celsius, there still could be a major humanitarian crisis to sort out. From the report: Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of "unimaginable scale," according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the "new normal." The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required. "Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century," said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "Weâ(TM)re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."
...and yet the article proceeds to imagine this crisis.
Just in case their crazy-sounding warning happens to come true.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Slashdot lost credibility a long time ago.
This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020, if it is, refugees from San Francisco will come *here* wearing their assless leather pants. That's worrisome.
Now back to News for Nerds.
“Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century,” said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change.."
Don't deny the science. The earth is 1.8 degrees hotter than the last 100 year average. Not sure why I would relocate over a 1 degree change in average temperature, but I just follow the science not hysteria.
There is only crisis if 'we' allow it. Securing the boarders against 'mass migration' would be easy.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Radical Islam can't be a factor here. It's all due to climate change. The fact that your country doesn't have a very good handle on it's own radical insurgents doesn't mean you're looking for convenient scapegoats to deflect blame to. Naw.
Ah yes, some oil company-funded think tanks and a couple of climatologists who have never published any of their AGW-crushing research must be speaking the truth, whereas the overwhelming majority of experts in the field are faking it.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In South America, glaciers are disappearing so fast that people are running out of water, and moving to other places, regardless of boundaries.
Even internally you can see the migration occurring in North America, regardless of boundaries, or oceans.
Now if only these land-hoarding NIMBYs would stop their futile attempts to resist growth, and decommission the empty states and counties, we'd be fine.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Indeed, from TFS: "having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency."
No matter where you stand on climate change, linking it to the above is more than a bit of a stretch.
Which brings up a point. If you're serious about doing something about AGW/climate change, articles such as this one move the cause backward, not forward, by giving ammunition to AGM/cc opponents.
Models predict temperature rises, temperature rises are observed. What you're doing is moving the goal posts so you can make it sound like your childish denial has any basis in fact.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
--EOM--
love is just extroverted narcissism
A bit dated from 2009, but a good series on future-casting the Geo-politics of climate change. http://gwynnedyer.com/radio/
refugees from San Francisco will come *here* wearing their assless leather pants. That's worrisome.
I have seen San Francisco on TV, and this is exactly how all of them dress all the time.
And where is your evidence for that claim?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You sound exactly like you work on the @HouseScience committee.
Who yesterday tweeted out an anti climate change article. From Breitbart. Because it got colder. In winter.
Holy Fucking Shit.
https://twitter.com/HouseScien...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy. Heck, buy a bunch of safe property while you're at it, great money to be made when the waters rise!
It's the people who insist that other people need to change everything they do because Climate Change, but aren't taking the threat seriously in their own life, who piss me off right up there with the hypocritical televangelists.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
the only thing you proved is that the media has been sensationalizing and misreporting science for a very long time.
and you get modded down because the things you say are discredited BS, the same tired BS that gets trotted out by "skeptics" every time.
only thing is, a skeptic only gets to question until his question actually gets answered.
it is then, when begin ignoring science and still post the same BS that you are no longer a skeptic.
you are not a skeptic.
you are a troll, posting BS.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
In light of this news...time to start building those walls NOW....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This reminds me of something I mentioned here on Slashdot just the other day. Though it's not looking like San Francisco will really be underwater by 2020,
Correct. San Francisco is very hilly. They may have to elevate the freeway, but most of it will be fine.
http://www.floodmap.net/Elevat...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
So fucking things up immensely on a global scale leads to shit getting immensely fucked up on a global scale? Color me surprised. I just hope it doesn't affect the skeptics and deniers, it might bruise their egos.
There hasn't been a serious claim of global cooling in nearly half a century. This is like saying "Well, you know, up until relatively recently lots of people believed the sun circled the Earth."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Translation: I have no evidence.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know, the ones we were already supposed to have?
By 2010?
That was according to the United Nations Environment Program. You know, a bunch of those experts who are telling us about all of the disasters global warming was supposed to have caused by now.
All of the "endangered" places that they talked about have had population increases since then, and no serious out-migration.
Of course, they noticed that prediction had failed spectacularly, so in 2011 they changed the date to 2020.
And no, the trend still hasn't changed.
You wanted to go "lalala, I can't hear you", so if you now leave your shore settlement to climb the mountain I'm on, I'll shoot you.
Problem solved. I don't care whether climate change is real anymore. If it ain't, great. If it is and your shores get flooded, drown or get shot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Repeated ignorance in the face of facts deserves ridicule.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Not in human history.
And the level sat at ~280pp for several million years without a die off in sight.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Completely wrong.
The current rate is over 333,000x faster than anything that has come before.
4. Measuring temperatures from millions of years ago to tenths of a degree with any certainty is not realistic. Yet, that's what we're doing.
Wrong.
5. The measuring devices we use, known as Stevenson Screens, have approximately 70% of them improperly cited in such a way as to produce more than 2 degrees of error making it appear hotter (see http://www.surfacestations.org...).
Still wrong.
6. We know some, perhaps a lot, of data has been fabricated (e.g. Yamal tree ring data) or manipulated in such a way as to produce the desired results (e.g. the so called hockey stick graph) and how it conveniently always gets colder in the past as data is adjusted.
Yep, wrong again.
7. We know from the ClimateGate email leaks that coordinated efforts to suppress any conflicting information/studies occurred and were successful.
Manufactured scandal.
IE, lies.
8. Many times the data and methodology of studies supporting AGW is not shared and that even occurs illegally in the refusal of FOIA requests.
Total fabrication
9. So many of the predicted side effects of AGW have not come to pass. For example, we were supposed to be seeing Katrina like hurricanes as the norm but instead the exact opposite happened and we have the longest stretch of reduced cyclonic activity since we began keeping records or the millions of climate refugees that were supposed to be created by now - the UN 62nd General assembly in July 2008 said: it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. They now say it'll be by 2020 - only a little over 3 years from now. It's not happening. [More here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/).
Actually 2012 was a record year for tropical storm damage, especially in areas that don't typically see much of them.
Cherry picking for only hurricanes, a geographically restricted term, leaves out rather a lot of the globe.
10. Experiments allegedly proving AGW are sometimes blatantly faked ([see here](https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/)).
Link to nonscientists who lie about science, and get paid to do so.
11. The breakdown of the scientific method as it becomes science by consensus with massive reliance on appeals to authority and popularity as well as theories that are not falsifiable.
Myth.
12. Computer models are based on assumptions that may or may not be accurate, computer models are not necessarily "proof" of the future. For example, the "pause" of the last 15 years that is causing all the confusion now.
There was no confusion.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Anyone with even a bit of knowledge of the history of major migrations knows that it is often the sedentary populations who suffer the most. The Western Roman Empire fell in no small part due to the first wave of migrations from the Asian Steppe, and the Eastern Empire's collapse occurred in no small part because of later Turkic migrations from the Asian interior.
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The climate change police are getting more and more shrill over time. This decreases rather than increases their power to convince. But it was all futile anyway because you are asking people to reduce their standard of living by choice to accomplish a community goal. Even people who see the danger are loath to do that...thinking Al Gore and his planes and houses. It's the Whole Earth Catalog thing all over. "living guilt-free with our appropriate technology like Indians in the woods...free at last!". Only a tiny percentage of people will ever share in that goal meaningfully.
Nothing is going to change politically even when the oceans start encroaching cities, because the argument then will be that it is too late to fix the problem at that point. So, why bother with the stupid political activity, when we all know it's a nonstarter? Aren't there more constructive uses for their time? Instead of futile political activity, how about carbon sequestration-related work? Fund startups to do that... Plant trees. Do *something* to combat the problem you see rather than all of this wasted political activity...dare I say hot air? Solve the problem and stop trying to force others to change to 'solve' it.
But they won't, because it's not really about climate change. It's about social control and mandating lifestyles. People who apparently really don't like personal success very much because they choose goals that are unachievable.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy. Heck, buy a bunch of safe property while you're at it, great money to be made when the waters rise!
I believe in Climate Change and the resulting sea level rise. I live about 10 feet above MSL (and about 2 miles away from the water) and my region recently voted to tax ourselves to help pay for mitigations against that rise.
But instead of paying those taxes, I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions to reduce the rate of global warming and slow the sea level rise.
Oh, and I think at this juncture useful to remind this AC that those aforementioned oil companies knew about AGW forty years ago.
Yes and I remember US Pres. Carter trying to bring the issue to the forefront, he even installed solar panels on the White House which Regan ripped down as soon as he took office. Pres. Carter stated we need to start to address it now before it gets too expensive.
Maybe something will be done when most of Florida is under water. Some very young people here may even see that start to happen and people will still be voting for deniers. Well, when Florida 1/3 it's size maybe that will solve the issue of electing the people we do in this nation.
What winter :) Last year it was a cool spring here in December, January and February with no snow. So far as of today it hardly went below freezing a couple of days and by now when I was young, we would usually have had a few light snow storms now, with maybe a permanent covering on our lawns of 2 inches (~5cm) or so.
Great for my heating bill anyway
They literally meant colder from last month. Exactly the same as the Hawaii senator holding a snow ball, or Trump saying it's colder during a snowstorm.
These people are guiding science funding at a national level. And literally don't understand seasons, much less anything at a global scale.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
But instead of paying those taxes, I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions to reduce the rate of global warming and slow the sea level rise.
That's rather ... optimistic. Maybe that could work. Maybe it's already too late. Maybe China will talk a good game while quietly doubling their CO2 output. Maybe it's all solar activity and Antarctica is gone regardless of human activity. When it comes to important things, it's best to plan for more than the optimistic case, especially for years-long efforts.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Indeed, from TFS: "having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency."
No matter where you stand on climate change, linking it to the above is more than a bit of a stretch.
Which brings up a point. If you're serious about doing something about AGW/climate change, articles such as this one move the cause backward, not forward, by giving ammunition to AGM/cc opponents.
Actually, not so much of a stretch. The civil war in Syria was preceded by a massive migration of people from rural to urban areas due to an unprecedented drought:
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Global warming doesn't directly cause civil wars, but migration and the resulting social instability most certainly does, and will.
Ah, the garbage dumpster argument: pile enough garbage up, and tell the reader somewhere in the dumpster one argument might be real; you need to wade through all the garbage to find it.
I don't have time to wade through all the garbage. I'll go with the three strikes you're out approach: if your first three arguments aren't convincing, I'll stop there.
There are lots of reasons I am skeptical of this: 1. A primary method of convincing others is to ridicule and insult them. Notice the responses and downvotes this post will get.
Not relevant.
2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history
Yep. And, you know what? All of those higher CO2 levels were associated with higher global temperatures! That's not evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming-- it's evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming
and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows..
Nope. Current levels are higher than it's ever been for as long as we can measure the CO2 record from ice cores, well over a million years. I think you're talking about really long ago. In that you'd be correct: carbon dioxide levels were higher before the Pleistocene. These were also, however, times when the Earth didn't have an ice cap or glaciers. So, again: this isn't evidence against the effect of carbon dioxide on climate-- it's evidence for it.
We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities.
Slightly misleading. Carbon dioxide increases plant growth-- but only in environments in which CO2 is the limiting resource, not other nutrients, water, or sunlight. In a greenhouse, where you make sure that the temperature, nutrients, and water are all optimal, sure, it's worth adding CO2. Outside, though, it's only one effect among many.
3. The temperature change we are seeing now is far from unusual, we've seen similar changes in both rate and magnitude before. In fact, what we are seeing now does not stand out from background noise.
Doesn't stand out from the background... over tens of millions of years. Even so, actually, the current rate of warming is pretty exceptional. It does, however, stand out from the background over the period in which we have good measurements of both temperature and of all the other forcing factors, such a solar irradiance. So: no.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
On the flip side, if Climate Change is your religion, and yet you live in low-lying coast land, you're kind of an idiot at this point. If you Believe, then topographical maps are free and you should be taking care of yourself and your family - live and work where it will remain safe, and make the move now, not after everything goes crazy.
So ... your solution to global warming is that impoverished villagers in Bangladesh should be buying condos in Aspen?
>No matter where you stand on climate change, linking it to the above is more than a bit of a stretch.
Likely your bias contributed to your reading into this a claim never made, and that is that all climate change = Man made Global warming. Some are related, but if you re-read this article with that difference in mind, it is then true. That small localized changes will get worse as the world gets hotter is made more important by understanding how vulnerable the world is to small changes in local climates.
I think too many people just don't get that ag societies still exist, and need to be informed that it often doesn't take much to trigger a flare up when you have so many people living in poverty. It may be wrong to conflate climate change of the past (regional droughts, water shortages, poor crops due to weather variations.) as closely with man made global warming, as this article hints. But it would be difficult or impossible to say localized climate change didn't contribute some to all of those uprisings.
https://www.americanprogress.o...
"A once-in-a-century winter drought in China contributed to global wheat shortages and skyrocketing bread prices in Egypt, the worldâ(TM)s largest wheat importer." (Sternberg, p. 7)
"Of the world's major wheat-importing companies per capita, "the top nine importers are all in the Middle East; seven had political protests resulting in civilian deaths in 2011." (Sternberg, p. 12)
"The world is entering a period of `agflation,` or inflation driven by rising prices for agricultural commodities." (Johnstone and Mazo, p. 21)
"Drought and desertification across much of the Sahel-northern Nigeria, for example, is losing 1,350 square miles a year to desertificationâ"have undermined agricultural and pastoral livelihoods," contributing to urbanization and massive flows of migrants. (Werz and Hoffman, p. 37)
"As the region's population continues to climb, water availability per capita is projected to plummet. Rapid urban expansion across the Arab world increasingly risks overburdening existing infrastructure and outpacing local capacities to expand service."(Michel and Yacoubian, p. 45)
"We have reached the point where a regional climate event can have a global extent." (Sternberg, p. 10)
Period. It's a waste of time. Any government that tries to force standard of living reduction will be voted out of office. This is essentially what happened with Obama, and he tried to do it in a stealthy way. Imagine someone openly taking an axe to public prosperity in the interest of climate change? They'd shove knives up his ass like Quaddafi.
You have to create a totalitarian state with the full apparatus of secret police, surveillance, detention camps and summary executions to even start to go there, and the focus on climate change would impair your ability to maintain that social control. Beside which, the inherent corruption in such a state would ultimately subvert your efforts to reduce your carbon footprint.
Also, i'd rather have the climate change than the secret police, thanks.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Well, someone disagrees with you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
First sentence:
Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 millimetres (0.10 in) and 2.9 millimetres (0.11 in) per year ± 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) since 1993[3] and has accelerated in recent years.[4]
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
But more to the point, you're a fucking monster, and I hope you die of the most horrible disease one can imagine, so awful that your family literally prays to God every night that you die quickly... but you won't. I also hope the nurses and doctors who treat you are Muslims, and they are nice to you until your dying breath, so you can know fully what a disgusting subhuman you really are, you monstrous ugly piece of excrement.
Damn! A simple, "Go to Hell," might have sufficed.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
China is doing more than talking a good game, they have also quietly built up a renewable energy industry that dwarfs all others on earth, by an order of magnitude. They will be able to turn their energy economy on a dime, they just prefer selling to westerners for the time being. Practice on the weak; save the best for last.
Here's how actual temps compare to the CMIP3 model output used in the IPCC AR4:
The amount of money in AGW is a fraction of the amount of money oil companies pump out of the ground every week.
You are missing just how much money there is to be controlled through carbon taxes and carbon markets. Furthermore, to have a military adviser declaring that topic X is an important reason to increase military funding hardly seems surprising. Call me when the military volunteers their budgets be cut to help offset climate change because it's more effective.
It's entirely unsurprising that a military committee would recommend that a good response to ANYTHING is increasing military spending. When the military advises that defense interests are better served by redirecting their own funding to offsetting climate change that's the point you know they mean it. Otherwise you've got guys with little to no climate background declaring climate change as a good reason to give them more money, which isn't entirely convincing.
Well you can count the Syrian, Ethioian and Eritrean refugees as Climate refugees. Mega droughts have triggered the fighting in Syria and the exodus from the Horn of Africa
**Life is too short to be serious**
"2. We have seen vastly higher CO2 levels in planetary history and right now we are seeing what is actually all time lows. We should expect CO2 increases and, in fact, hope for them as going much below 300 ppm would see the beginning of a massive plant die off - there's a reason commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their facilities."
We have seen vastly higher?
When? Some time before 400,000 years ago?
The refugee crisis you refer to is actually the second Syrian refugee crisis.
The first refugee was an internal displacement of 1.5 million people (out of a population of 20 million) over the period 2007-2011 during crops failed due to unprecedented drought. Over two hundred villages were completely depopulated, and 40% of Syria's agricultural workforce was lost. Domestic wheat production crashed, and prices skyrocketed as it was replaced by imports.
So you had over a million hungry, unemployed displaced people crowded into cities, when a bad harvest in Russia caused a spike in global wheat prices. Check out the graph in this link labelled "World Monthly Grains Price Index" and note the massive upswing in prices in 2010 - 2011. There was a similar price spike in 2007, but back then Syria produced essentially all the wheat it consumed. In 2010 Syria only produced 80% of what it needed, resulting in underconsumption -- aka "starvation". You can check out the figures here.
Finally note that the so-called "Day of Rage" which critically destabilized the regime took place on March 15, 2011. The timing was not coincidental.
Now you can talk to me about "political struggle" in Syria. The roots of that struggle are of course decades old. But the effects were exacerbated by the worst drought in 900 years.
Without the sarcasm, try to stay on topic lest you continue to be perceived as a shithead Troll.
I have stayed on topic. Shithead troll I guess is a matter of perspective. Syria is exactly the kind of scenario security planners are worried about. And one reason they are worried is that many in the public literally find the idea of climate-driven refugees unimaginable. People who've been paying attention find it all too easy to imagine.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
China is incredibly vulnerable to overall sea level rises, considering that large portions of its population live in low-lying areas. I know China is the anti-emission control crowd's favorite bogeyman, but countries like China and India are at great risk in multiple ways if even the more moderate models for the latter half of this century come to fruition.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
In reality, physicists studying CO2 at the end of 19th century understood its solar absorption properties and hypothesized that if CO2 levels increased in the atmosphere, that it could lead to greater heating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There is absolutely nothing controversial from a scientific perspective about even fractional increases in CO2 in the atmosphere causing increased trapping of energy in the lower atmosphere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The Syrian crisis is largely because of the migrations of rural areas into the cities. The reason those people are migrating to cities? The climate has exacerbated a long drought.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ominous-story-of-syria-climate-refugees/
It is very much on topic.
Nope. Plain old wars and good old fashioned political corruption did that.
The "drought caused the Syrian civil war" theory is, frankly, crap. It was based off of one paper, which built a big statistical mountain off of a molehill. They exaggerated the number of people affected by the drought, and failed to show any sort of cause and effect. For that matter, the ACTUAL cause of the migration was a financial - subsidies for diesel and fertilizers were cut.
The civil war in Syria, by the way, started two years AFTER the drought ended. If it was caused by the drought, it seems like the events would have been closer together.
Gee. I wonder if anything might drastically alter that rate when certain areas like Greenland pass some arbitrary point. Oh, lets just choose, I dunno, an average low of 33 degrees F. Nah, you're right. It will probably continue like clockwork.
It doesn't matter if you believe in climate change or not. What matters is what actually happens. A meter or less by 2100 seems likely, and someone who's living 2m above sea level has plenty of time to move.
I live something like 180 or 190 meters above sea level, personally.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
So, instead of rambling on, how about specifically explaining how Boko Haram's murdering of villages full of people and kidnapping the young girls and subjecting them to gang rapes and forced marriage is a function of climate change. Be very specific. How does the climate change cause the rape? When a man decides to rape a woman and tells her village it's because they're not Muslim, what is the actual, climate-based reason for that rape? Specifically, please.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If Wheat was the problem, the US would be dropping food bags on the populace instead of TONS OF WEAPONS.
You'd need a time machine capable of sending three million tons of wheat six years into the past.
As to why we didn't do it that the time, you may recall we had a financial crisis to deal with. Very few Americans were paying attention to what at the time was an internal crisis in Syria, and if they had they wouldn't be interested in spending a billion dollars addressing it ($350/ton * 3 million ton shortfall).
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Models project everything, so they just point to one that's close and say, "See? Our models are correct." Enjoy your assumed moral superiority and virtue-signalling while it lasts.
Global warming causes everything. As long as those everythings are bad. Biggest scam in mankind's history.
Sorry, we're in the new, post-fact era. Was is peace, freedom is slavery, and facts are trolling.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
They're never called on their (many) mistakes, shitty science and deplorable conduct towards climate realists. Too sexay of a story for the media to endlessly, unquestioningly repeat. There's too much government money involved and the climate is being used as a political weapon. Unlimited taxpayer funds buys tons of PR. Biggest. Scam. Ever.
If the military sees climate change as a military problem then I'd like to see the military try to solve the problem. Perhaps the military could build more nuclear powered warships to replace oil burning ones. Aircraft carriers and submarines have been nuclear powered for a long time, use that technology in other ships, like destroyers and amphibious assault ships. There has been so much research in synthesizing fuel for aircraft, because kerosene is awesome fuel for aircraft and by synthesizing the fuel from carbon in the air and water the carbon loop is closed. Synthesized fuel not only closes the carbon loop but also separates the national economy from relying on oil supplies from hostile and/or unstable nations. Nuclear power is great, and the military should certainly invest in it, but also wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy projects could come from military funding and research.
It turns out that the US military has been trying to do this for a very long time.
I've seen so many people in the energy research industry, and people in the military, that would love to invest in energy alternatives so that we would not have to rely on fossil fuels as much as we have. The largest obstacle to this, ironically, is the US Department of Energy.
The US Navy wants more nuclear powered ships. They are able to operate for much longer periods of time before needed resupply, which is a huge tactical advantage. Given the large energy density of nuclear power it is also possible to have more weapons, and more powerful weapons, than an oil fired ship would be able to support. Directed energy weapons are really only viable on a nuclear powered vessel. But the Navy cannot build nuclear reactors without some support from the DOE, and certainly without support from Congress.
The US Navy has been funding research in synthesizing fuels and in fusion power reactors. The problem is that if the funding reaches a certain monetary level then the DOE comes along, declares it within their authority, takes over the project, and... kills it. The DOE is interested in tokamak fusion, and anything that might compete with it makes them look bad, so they simply declare any fusion reactor that is not a tokamak "non-viable" and keeps betting on the same horse that may never finish the race.
The US Navy has also been funding research in synthetic fuels, because a nuclear powered vessel that can fuel the aircraft that it carries is very advantageous. This technology would also be quite valuable for land based operations, and civilian vehicles. But this is a threat to the DOE research in electric vehicles so they will try to kill it if they can. The Navy though has been very protective of this technology and has been doing this research for a very long time now. If given proper funding then we could see this much sooner.
The US DOE has been very hostile to nuclear power, synthetic fuels, among other technologies that might actually solve this climate change problem. This is assuming the problem even exists, I'm not a believer in this catastrophic anthropogenic global warming issue largely because of the very hostile attitude the DOE has had on so many possible solutions to the problem. If the CAGW crowd want to convince me that it is a real problem then I want to see real solutions be given a chance. If the federal government, through the DOE, keeps killing these alternatives to fossil fuels then I cannot be convinced that the federal government truly sees CAGW as a problem.
Oddly enough it might take a Trump administration, which is not on the CAGW bandwagon, to solve this problem of global warming. Trump himself and the GOP have stated that nuclear power should be developed. The Obama administration and the Democrats are openly hostile to nuclear power. Trump and the GOP are supportive of the military and just might give them the nuclear powered ships they've asked for. As well as more solar panels for forward operating bases. The "Drill, Baby, drill" attitude might turn a lot of pe
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
So if someone could please post links to the most persuasive proof that we should all be worried about carbon dioxide levels, I'll take a look.
So far nobody has posted any links to CAGW proof, but my post has been moderated "Flamebait" and "Overrated". Folks, if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW, that's not the optimal strategy.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Then there's the fact that the cost of addressing climate change is insignificant next to the costs of not addressing it.
Attempting to simplify the crises in Syria by pointing at climate change seriously under states all other factors. Hell, one of your own links (the usda one) clearly shows that Syria has been able to meet its needs IF allowed via imports and even discusses the fact that Syria manages this particular food stuff as a critical element of their sovereignty.
Trying to claim that sustained droughts over a period of years (2007-2011) when only 1 of those years shows a MAJOR fall in production vs traditional internal production doesn't even come close to explaining the refugee crisis. Hell, the USDA article makes it clear that the government (you know that 'bad regime' that we're trying to get rid of) has purposely paid higher than market prices to producers & kept pricing of bread stuffs low (e.g. 'price controls') in order to ensure domestic tranquillity. Furthermore the USDA article points out that Syria maintains a policy of ensuring growth or import of between 3 & 4 million tonnes in order to have at least '1 year supply' of wheat. Which probably explains why they important almost 1 million metric tonnes in 2009 over the consumption needs, probably to resupply their reserves. So just because production declined significantly in 1 year or imports didn't always meet a given years consumption doesn't mean that there wasn't sufficient reserves to feed their own people during that period of time.
Now, given the economic sanctions imposed since 2010 that have effectively decimated their economy...now THAT can cause a major crises, see this article about how sanctions causing oil & wheat prices to skyrocket & impact domestic wheat production, https://theintercept.com/2016/09/28/u-s-sanctions-are-punishing-ordinary-syrians-and-crippling-aid-work-u-n-report-reveals/.
This from e-mails & reports from the UN, not someone particularly keen on blaming themselves.
O, and throw on top of that that world-wide wheat production has sky-rocketed since 2006 by over an extra 120 million metric tonnes (a 20% increase over 10 years) world wide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_wheat_production_statistics) so at least in theory if sanctions against Syria didn't exist they'd not only be able to feed themselves rather easily they'd likely be back up to normal production levels.
Now, I don't doubt that climate change MAY have an impact on what I'll call 'living patterns', e.g. where people will move to in order to avoid effects of climate change induced weather but the Syrian situation is hardly a good example of this. And the generals pointing at revolutions against dictatorial regimes & terrorism as examples doesn't cut it either.
Nothing like an article about climate change to bring all the loonies out.
One meter rise in sea level in our lifetime? Really? I was born at night, but not last night.
Congratulations, you're now no better, or possibly worse.
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
TFA makes a bold assumption, that the reason for all of the political turmoil in the world is at least somehow related to climate change.
Perhaps you should quote the part where they made this claim, because I can't find it mentioned in the article. At no point does the article state that there is a singular reason behind all the conflicts of the world. At no point does it even say that climate change is a factor in all political turmoil in the world. You made that up.
You claim that ideology is the reason for wars, but where does ideology come from? Will the ideology of some armchair critic, sitting in his comfortable air-conditioned home in some far off affluent country, be the same as a poor, desperate person who has lived a large portion of his life in a crippling drought? If your answer is yes, then that seems to me to be a simplistic, black and white view of the world that has no basis in reality.
You claim that the article makes a bold assumption, but all it does it reports the studies that scientists have made and analyses of high-ranking military figures. You say it is a false assumption, but where is your evidence that it is false? All you have done is counter those claims with assumptions of your own. If you say that the wars in the Middle East had nothing to do with climate change despite what the scientists and military leaders say, that is something that I consider to be an extraordinary claim; and one that requires extraordinary proof. But you have provided none.
It used to be "what happened to that ice age we were going to have", then it was "sun spots" or "volcanoes". The chickens are getting sore and would like to lay down for a while.
I'm glad you "realists" have such great WiFi out in the Maldives. That's where you've all gone to, right, since beachfront property is so cheap these days? Just make sure you stay there.
> How does the climate change cause the rape?
First show me where the article or I said that. It is a read hearing, neither I nor the article said climate change caused anything, let alone a specific act.
Horrible shit happens in War. War is more likely to happen, when you have millions of people who cannot feed their families because crops are gone, clean water is not available and the food they had bought in the past is too expensive and thus out of reach. You cannot tell me in that situation, it isn't more likely for a warlord with food, money, and smooth talk to get a army together of those people to further his agenda? Pre-existing problems that may have lead to war without a major drought, but with time could have found another outlet, it boils up faster and larger when more heat is applied.
Key word being "military". The U.S. military is the single largest user of carbon fuels. The U.S. military gets most of it's funding to ensure the world's gas station (the Middle East) keeps pumping oil.
So, yeah, you might want to pay attention if even the Pentagon is saying climate change is going to have serious consequences. It's like Philip Morris talking about the cancerous substances in tobacco - if even they are admitting it's a problem, why are you continuing to deny it?
Cue the Global Warming Deniers, Trumpster Divers, Koch-paid commenters and other loons.
Meanwhile, organizations like the US military have to look squarely at the reality of Climate Change and try to protect the country from its consequences...despite the best efforts of the fossil fuel lobbyists and their drooling, willfully ignorant dupes.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Building a wall and having the ocean pay for it is called tidal power (and the wall is a tidal barrage, a type of dam)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Attempting to simplify the crises in Syria by pointing at climate change seriously under states all other factors. Hell, one of your own links (the usda one) clearly shows that Syria has been able to meet its needs IF allowed via imports
The USDA link shows no such thing; it shows Syria eating up its reserves as it fails to import enough wheat to make up the shortfall. Yes, Assad underwrote the price of bread, but there wasn't enough subsidized bread to meet demand, forcing people to buy non-subsidized bread which increased in price six-fold. The net bread expenditure went up by 20% in a country where many people spend half their income on food.
I'm not a reductionist; situations like this have multiple important factors. The Assad/Islamist thing had been simmering for decades -- generations really. Had that situation been different, the climate shock might not have destabilized the country. In point of fact bread prices were an issue throughout the Middle East and a major factor in the Arab Spring. Syria was arguably better positioned than most other Arab countries, but the stress of having 5% of your population displaced on top of the deep and old fault lines broke the country apart.
This is precisely how climate shock is going to work. It won't be like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water; it'll be formerly rare occurrences happening more frequently and stressing vulnerable populations. Take sea level rise; cities won't drown slpowly, but what was once a hundred year flood will become twenty year flood. That will stress coastal cities, and the results depend on how stable and wealthy a particular city is.
For example were sea level to rise almost a meter by 2100 (as is now within the scope of mainstream positions), the very wealthy coastal city I live in would go the Venice route and build a tidal barrier, which would conservatively cost at least ten billion dollars. Chittagong Bengladesh, however, will be screwed. My city has twice the GDP of Bengladesh as a whole even though it has 3% of the population.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If Wheat was the problem, the US would be dropping food bags on the populace instead of TONS OF WEAPONS. GUNS DO NOT GROW OR WATER CROPS YOU FUCKING MORON!
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that the crisis must not be driven by a non-political cause because if it were the US would have solved it? Or, to put it another way, your're arguing that the US government is so perfectly effective at always addressing the root causes of problems in a timely manner, that the government's failure to address this one means it's not the root cause?
Dude, you must know a different US government than I do. The one I know occasionally does the right thing at the right time, but it's mostly by accident.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Neal Stephenson imagined it and made it part of "Snow Crash".
Don't blame the scientists for some shit said by a pimply political intern somewhere that then ended up in a speech.
For some reason this is the first I've ever heard of it.
What is the point of debunking some obscure lie somewhere and pretending that the lie is mainstream? It just seems like a mindless way to try to start a fight to me.
The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency.
This sort of donkey shit is part of the reason why the anti-climate change movement has so much steam behind it. Even blaming stuff like Hurricane Katrina on climate change was pretty bad, but this? It shouldn't be mentioned. It's senselessly injecting tangential politics into an already senselessly politicized issue. I'm sure someone has a very clever conjecture-heavy explanation for these claims, but I highly, highly, highly doubt that global warming was remotely significant in the genesis of any of those things.
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but Syria didn't suddenly erupt in chaos because the banana harvest was a bit low this year.
if you are trying to convince me of the science behind CAGW,
Actually, nobody gives a flying fuck what an idiot like you thinks.
Typical Leftist response. Down-mod but don't refute. Because facts are stubborn things and are hard to refute.
That's fine, I've got enough karma to burn to raise global temps by 10C by New Years!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
All what he said was cited and cited over and over and over. Just go to real climate science FFS. But you guy keep repeating the same lie, and every time ask for the thankless job of citation. Just to ignore it again in the next story. Personally I stopped caring. I am old enough that the effect will be minimal on my life, and I have no children. So I egoistically don't care anymore. Go ahead continue pumping CO2 in the atmosphere, and go ahead continue ignoring the very fucking simple science about the greenhouse effect (heck that effect was long known, but apparentely for idiot like you climate change denier , having a higher CO2 ppm in the atmosphere does not warm it, go figure). I'll be long dead when the worst effect will start to be felt. And go all fuck yourself *bows*.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
All models are wrong. Do you have a better one?
Keep in mind these models are not statistical analyses of the dataset, they are physical models, which are true because of the laws of physics. The models may be inaccurate, but they can't be wrong, because that would mean that some fundamental part of physics would be wrong. And if you want to poke holes in the laws of physics, you need some pretty strong empirical evidence to do so.
The amount of modeling you need to do to see that a higher partial pressure of CO2 results in warming is minimal. It's a direct result of the properties of the gas, as established by Tyndall in 1860, and Arrhenius was able to hand-calculate a fairly accurate estimate of the warming for a doubling of CO2 in 1896. We actually did have decades where the AGW theory was scientifically controversial, including much of the early 20th Century. I am not sure how you imagine that decades of physical research and unimaginable increases in computing ability would result in worse models. Simple models are also not necessarily less useful than more complex ones, either, depending on what the exact question you want to know is.
Want to know how much of the Earth's global average temperature is due to atmospheric warming? You just need a one-dimensional model, it's just the difference between the blackbody temperature and the observed temperature. Want to know what the effective radiating height is for the atmosphere for a given temperature? Two dimensional model. If you want to know what happens to the Earth as a result of doubling CO2, that question is pretty complex, especially since it needs to model human behavior. The question of "What happens to a column of air of a given composition when the partial pressure of CO2 doubles?" is much, much easier to solve. Radiative transfer equations also describe extraterrestrial atmospheres well, including the atmospheres of Venus, Jupiter, and the Sun.
Which brings us back to you. Yes, you, the one with a bone to pick with physics. The global climate models are not your problem. Your problem is that it requires very little sophistication to start seeing evidence of AGW. We don't need to model the whole Earth and everything in it, nor even the whole atmosphere. In order for these basic models to be wrong, the observations must also be wrong, so ultimately you just need one single fact in your favor to lay waste to the entire theory of AGW, and potentially all atmospheric and radiative physics. You need either a change in the physical properties of CO2, a new way for Earth to transfer heat energy to space, or a hidden decrease in solar output. Personally, I try not to get in arguments with the consensus view of reality, especially with the people whose job is to measure that reality to extremes of precision, and especially not after a hundred or so years of research into the issue. But if that makes sense to you, I applaud your courage, and await the results of your paper.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?
So if I'm left: pro health insurance, pro unions etc. ... what responses do you expect from me if the topic e.g. is global warming or fund increase for the navy etc.?
I don't get it.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
Sorry, the US way of labeling opinions/political stances/ideas/arguments seems extremely NAZI to me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
In same countries ... that counts for EU e.g. your funding is determined by the university you are researching at.
There is no magical funding because you "make press".
Perhaps you should either reconsider your IDEA how funding works, or if the funding in your country in fact is such retarded: change the way how science is funded?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The problem is: there is no hell.
So letting him die while suffering is the closest thing to hell imaginable he will experience.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Typical Leftist response
Please enlighten me.
What is that supposed to mean?
In this context it refers to the typical response to inconvenient facts by those who are committed US Leftists of attempting to shout-down, censor, and/or silence those expressing them, a 'shoot-the-messenger' tactic commonly employed by those on the US political Left.
Why can I not have a political opinion without being labeled a "lefty" and why can I not be "left" without being supposed to have a particular opinion on a topic?
I ask the same question regarding being on the 'Right'. One need only scroll through responses to my past posts to see the mirror-image labeling and pigeon-holing being employed.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
You didn't provide to refute. Just a series of non sequiturs.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Which is absurd as Shackleton and the like could only observe sea ice. You may note that they didn't have satellites or permanent monitoring stations a century ago.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A lot of the people living in low lying areas, particular in Asia, don't exactly have the resources to pick up and leave, and if you bothered to read the article you would realize this is exactly what these people are talking about, large numbers of people living in areas that climate change will make relatively uninhabitable, or at least considerably more unpleasant to live in, getting up and leaving. You know... migrations.
I see this happening within the USA midwest to southwest states. Who wants to live where the daytime temperature rises above that of the human body, and where water evaporation at that temperature leaves the land parched and nearly barren. Of couse, the side effects are denied too, you know the ones, hurricanes and tornadoes and dry heat windstorms.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency
Boko Haram's name, translated, means "Western/Non-Islamic Education Is A Sin." They kill and rape in the name of that message. TFS directly links Boko Haram's insurgency to climate change.
It is a read hearing
The term you're looking for is "red herring." Red, the color, and herring, the fish. It comes from a technique used in training and testing fox hounds, to see if they can be too easily distracted.
... people who trot that crap out are the worst sort of patronizing, condescending, smug racists one ever comes across. Quick! Absolve them of their ideology and actions because they're too simple, as a people, to realize that it's climate change and not the culture they're embracing that causes them to murder, torture, and rape! Whew, dodged a bullet there - wouldn't want to ever judge anybody, because every world view is equally valid, unless you're from a western democracy, in which case you're evil because climate change. Except that very dismissal judges them as too mentally inferior to resist murdering and raping, because ... climate change.
... suddenly change their world view and decide that's the right way to be? What would it take YOU to be convinced that's the way to gain political power? Or are you saying you, personally, could not be convinced to think that's OK, but those people in Africa are somehow by disposition more easily persuaded to take up that way of life, especially because Climate Change?
So you're right, but only by accident, for the wrong reasons. The summary is trying to distract you from the evils of groups like Boko Haram by somehow making their willingness to slaughter villages and take hundreds of young girls into the jungle where they are then sold off as sex slaves somehow about climate change, rather than about the very reasons they plainly state that they do those exact things. People like you who try to tell those Africans that they're too dumb to know what they're saying, and that it's really the fault of climate change that they're murdering and raping their way through areas they're trying to convert to Islam
Which "smooth talk" is it that you think is somehow more persuasive in the context of climate change that makes someone who would otherwise not murder a girl's family in front of her eyes before assigning her to a rape camp
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"No better than" assumes there is some universal standard to measure the worth of a person. There is no such thing as good or bad, just what makes the majority of people happier or sadder. Of course I a technologist, so I don't focus only on averages, but also percentiles. I don't just want average happiness to go up, but the 99th percentile as well.
In the majority of land area, yes it is.
Since you're such an expert AC, perhaps you could tell me the percentage of land that is in winter right now?
I'll give you a hint. It's 68%.
Thus, land temps in the northern hemisphere are overweighted for the whole world.
And I'm the stupid fuck...lol.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Here's the full article: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
CMIP3 was used in AR4. CMIP5 was used in AR5.
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do ... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Probably for the same reason I had never heard of it. It's obvious bullshit and was ignored.
I'm a lefty, and I would never do or propose one of the things you claim lefties would do ... just for your interest. And neither would any other lefty in my country ...
I believe that more speech is always the solution. Let ideas compete equally out in the open without censor regardless of how revolting some may find some speech. After all, it is only unpopular opinions that need protecting. Nobody tries to suppress speech they agree with.
If one's ideas and speech can only gain acceptance by silencing/suppressing others' ideas and speech, then one should re-examine and re-evaluate their own ideas and speech, for that is where the problem lies.
If what you say is true then carry on, Sir, whether we may agree or not. If I may ask a favor, please have a heart-to-heart with the US Left. Sad to say, they are currently not only harming themselves but the US as well with the tactics I outlined above, which are just a fraction of the things they discredit themselves with without help of opposition.
Hell, I really don't want either faction to gain too much power. That leads to tyranny. However, the US Left has swung the pendulum quite a ways Left in the US and I fear the counter-swing, of which Trump could be just the beginning. That the pendulum has swung so far Left in the US (by US standards) is what's driven extreme political views, opinions, and policies from both sides.
A far-Right fascist authoritarian regime and a far-Left socialist authoritarian regime are nearly indistinguishable from the general populations' viewpoint.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Hillary and Obama policies have created 65 million refugees the largest in history. Now climate change liberals want to tell us climate change will create refugees. How ironic. The refugee lovers complaining about refugees. You made 65 million of them. What do you care about refugees anyway? What a load. Load upon load of lies and crap. Cagw doesn't exist. All the consequences ever predicted never happen. There is no sea level rise. 30,000 km more coastlines In the last 30 years than before. Less extreme storms than ever. Nothing cagw people say has ever happened. The last year heat wave was El Niño. We have gotten them before and will get them again just as we're getting a monster La Niña now. The fastest decline in temperatures ever recorded. Did they say that? Did they predict that? I did. Totally crap climate science is drivel but we are expected to beleive nonexistent coastline decline is supposed to cause things when nothing they've ever predicted before has come true. Nothing. No ice free Arctic by 2000. No polar bears extinction. No extreme hurricanes. No extreme anything. It's crap science for morons.
The democrats crashed the economy before they even got into office so some nukes didn't get funding?
How stupid do you think we all are here?
Did you come to this site today just to troll?
There is a massive shift of the goalposts between "refused by government" and "decided not to go ahead due to lack of funding".
Show me one that was refused instead of jumping on a thread with a blatant goalpost shift because you can't find something that fits.
I don't have anything in this fight but all this "nukes would be great if it wasn't for those meddling kids and their dog" dishonest shit really gets me. If Westinghouse wasn't pushing 1970s dinosaurs painted green a bank might actually put up some money.
I was rather more hoping for a summary than a direct link to the 2007 report.
If I were a global warming scientist, I would already have read through those hundreds of pages. As a non-scientist, with things I need to do, I somewhat rely on news stories, like this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
And then I read through the PDFs at this site:
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/
The tone is rather tendentious (especially the second PDF) but I find the arguments compelling. As I understand it, the CAGW theory is that feedbacks will cause the warming to "run away" precipitously once we reach a cruical tipping point, but the PDFs have graphs showing the Earth once had a significantly higher CO2 concentration than currently without turning into another Venus. The annual news stories about "the previous year was the warmest on record" don't seem to mention error bars, and when I tracked some down I was astonished to see that the margin for the "warmest" claim was a small fraction of the uncertainty interval. And in my original post, now modded down to 0 score, I provided the link to an article with graphs comparing the predicted temperature increases with what actually were recorded.
I have seen proposals for a carbon tax that was intended to take trillions of dollars out of the economy. (The authors of the proposal viewed this as a feature: trillions of tax dollars of additional revenue for the US government! I personally don't think you can get something for nothing, so I worry about the harm that would occur if that level of tax was levied.) I think that this level of tax should require a high level of confidence, and I personally am not at that level yet.
Thank you for responding politely. You haven't convinced me and I likely haven't convinced you, but I hope you at least believe that I'm genuinely skeptical and not just trolling or trying to flame people about this.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
So you are ignoring the facts and instead basing your argument on your feelings towards history. Gotcha.
typo.
i meant 2016, not 2012.
my kingdom for an edit button
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I'd rather pay a bit more in goods and services to cover the costs of reducing carbon emissions
That is an unfounded assumption that moving towards more renewable energy is going to make goods and services cost more.