Slashdot Mirror
Last Time CO2 Levels Were This High, There Were Trees at the South Pole (theguardian.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: Trees growing near the South Pole, sea levels 20 metres higher than now, and global temperatures 3C-4C warmer. That is the world scientists are uncovering as they look back in time to when the planet last had as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as it does today. Using sedimentary records and plant fossils, researchers have found that temperatures near the South Pole were about 20C higher than now in the Pliocene epoch, from 5.3m to 2.6m years ago.
Many scientists use sophisticated computer models to predict the impacts of human-caused climate change, but looking back in time for real-world examples can give new insights. The Pliocene was a "proper analogy" and offered important lessons about the road ahead, said Martin Siegert, a geophysicist and climate-change scientist at Imperial College London. "The headline news is the temperatures are 3-4C higher and sea levels are 15-20 metres higher than they are today. The indication is that there is no Greenland ice sheet any more, no West Antarctic ice sheet and big chunks of East Antarctic [ice sheet] taken," he said.
People die. Why is dying a bad thing? So I can murder you fine...
Fossil fuels do not let developing countries develop much faster. Technology does. Africa leapfrogged the first world in mobile phone penetration because it didn't have the cash to wire all over Africa, but mobile station relays were much cheaper and tech allowed it when the first world could not when it made its telephone system.
No, it doesn't mean more rains. More water in the air and stays there. Cassius-Clapeyron relation, dude. When it falls it falls heavier, meaning floods. It leaves sooner meaning more droughts too. Sahara isn't greener for it, nor are your claims about India or Australia anything connected with Australia.
The floods destroy crops. The droughts destroy crops. The rising sea levels destroy crops. As technology increased the incidence of famine dropped. CO2 didn't do it.
So, yes, there's huge swathes of denial there. You've denied all of reality to arrive at your ideologically required conclusion: you should not pay to clean up your mess.
As far as I can tell, all Liberals do is talk about climate change, while either doing nothing at all that actually helps, or actually do great harm (like so-called "environmentalist" over the years have done by stopping nuclear energy projects, or by people like Al Gore flying private jets all over the world).
Meanwhile Trump seems to be the only one actually trying to fix the climate.
Really, it's a matter of historical ignorance to claim conservatives do not want to help the environment, as all of the strongest supporters of the environment to date have been conservative (like Theodore Roosevelt, and now Trump).
Furthermore, from traveling the world a great truth I have seen is that countries that have poor economies do a great deal of harm to the local environment, those that are well off do not. So the absolutely first step of a true environmentalist is to ensure a healthy economy and a prosperous people, who have the kind offer time and resources totally help where it counts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Asserting a claim is not the same as answering a question. No matter how many times you do it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
BTW, what part of a Warm Earth makes this "not a nice planet to live on". More plant life, more arable land, basically the current tropics as year-round weather everywhere. Seems quite nice to me.
If you want to make a coherent argument, you might instead say something reasonable, like "if you want to avoid wars as people are forced to move across borders" or some other rational argument. "I'm right because shut up!" is not a rational argument.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.