The statement that taking steps to address climate change will grow poverty is false, and you know this.
Where would I get this alleged knowledge from? It hasn't happened on Earth. For example, the Germans tried it and almost doubled the cost of their electricity. That hurts poor people more than it hurts the rich (since electricity purchasing is more of their budget), as you should know.
A worldwide program to develop and implement the new technologies necessary would create jobs and entire industries everywhere, as well as help undeveloped countries develop - sustainably.
But would it create as many jobs as the absence of such a worldwide program? I doubt it. You have to do a proper accounting here. The jobs created have to be balanced against the jobs destroyed. If I'm spending more for my energy, then I have less to spend on creating new jobs. If a highly productive job to build valuable materials out of fossil fuels is replaced with a job to climb buildings and install low value solar installations, then that is a net loss for society.
This is an example of a bizarre sort of fallacy. If I want it, then it must be good for everyone else too. When are you going to recognize that your renewable energy idea has been tried for decades and has yet to work? Do nothing is a powerful strategy. You have to show more than a few hopes of unicorns and rainbows while making ridiculous projections about people you disagree with.
Now, nothing is an *evolutionary response* unless it involves the the changing of an inherited trait. For life as we know it, that means a change to the genome or gene expression. Please see the "mainstream" definition of evolution.
Modern definitions of evolution are just elaborations of the basic system: there are traits which can be inherited by new generations, means for modifying those traits, and selection pressure which differentially filters traits. There's no point to your semantics game. Just because inherited traits are passed along by genes (and a few other mechanisms) doesn't mean that the characteristics I mention can't be so passed on.
If everything that could cause a selective pressure ("enables selection") were a cause of evolution, then literally everything in the universe that a lifeform interacts with in any way could qualify as well.
Here's a protip: it does. ANYTHING which allows organisms with certain traits to fare better and pass their genes further than organisms with other traits is selection.
No, migration IS just the action of moving from one place to another. It has nothing to do with the traits of any animals.
The obvious counterexamples are the traits of legs and wings.
So how much warming is that really? Knowing the sign of a quantity is useful, but knowing in addition the size of the quantity is far better. If the "higher-energy system" is not significantly higher, then it's not much to worry about. What's the point of lecturing me about the certainty of toy physics and atmospheric science models when the actual physical systems aren't even remotely that certain?
It's really depressing knowledge, honestly.
Not at all. Knowledge is power with which to change us and our world for the better. You just need to get that knowledge first.
Are you seriously so completely ignorant as to think that represents a reasoned argument?
The thing is, building and successfully flying a rocket is not all that different from building and flying a partially reusable rocket. They require the same sorts of skills, experience and infrastructure to do. Just like an apple producer is not all that different from an orange producer.
Thus, I consider SpaceX's previous successes a strong indication that it can develop the reusable technologies that it is trying to develop.
Further, SpaceX has already progressed on this front. Apparently in the Falcon 9 launch this April, the first stage successfully went through all the stages of a so-called "soft landing" aside from a sea-based recovery (it was lost in bad weather). That's a substantial step towards a fully reusable rocket.
Finally, we need to keep in mind that SpaceX got a good portion of the best and brightest in rocketry. Being able to design, build, and launch a rocket in your own lifetime is a pretty strong selling point for an employer. Those naysayers at NASA are the leftovers.
Are you seriously relying on these folks for your argument? Oh - I see that you have indeed referenced Watt's fraudulent and deceptive write up re: the paper by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers. I guess that stung a bit. Not the first time I've had to rub someones nose in it for that particular mistake over that particular paper.
What a shitty standard for fraud. I match your pathetic claim with Mann and Jones "hockey stick" paper. There's the evidence of "fraud" that meets your low standards.
The trees in my area of the world aren't very good at moving 200m straight up nor 300km north.
I guess you must have unusually slow trees. The trees in my area are quite adept at it. They do things like drop pine cones which then are eaten by bears and porcupines, and defecated miles away.
I'm sure you're just thinking that the trees will reseed themselves farther north or south, as the case may be.
So it wasn't the Heritage Foundation but rather a single bureaucrat writing a memo.
Does everything have to be an argument from personal incredulity with you people?
You ask this just after you demonstrated that you were materially wrong in your original assertion? There's always a catch to the sort of crap you just failed to pull off. One gets a nose for it after a while.
Also, we still have the little interesting fact that this propaganda strategy (of relabeling "global warming" as "climate change") is being used. It's just not being used by the characters of your little story.
Personally, I've decided that field of climatology and supporters of the "climate change" ideology won't give me a straight answer for the near future and that it's not worth the effort to evaluate the current batch of arguments. Your little game here is just another little bit of confirmation for my choice.
I'm waiting for real evidence. If it means that we have problems in the future because of the delay, so be it. I hope some day you'll decide to join me in sincere debate.
but instead cross-financed trough averaging production costs of non-renewables and renwables.
Subsidy via rent seeking in other words. The money comes from electricity customers (those high electricity prices I noted). When government gives you with something of value, it's a subsidy.
Second, It does not make sense to compare the price per kWh when the overall effiency is so vastly different to the USA:While I am paying about.29EUR per kWh on my renewables-only plan, in absolute numbers that amounts to only 40EUR per month on electricity for a 4 person household.
No. Don't even bother with such a dumb argument. If the US had to pay such prices, they would tighten up on the consumption as well. What you miss here is that this efficiency comes at a cost. Electricity is used more efficiently, but other resources, particularly human effort and time, are used less efficiently. I note also that you mention a lot of higher cost items in your home (the "well insulated house, efficient appliences, LED lighting everywhere, efficient computers"). Your money may not be valuable to you, but my money is valuable to me. And I imagine, push comes to shove, most Germans would rather have wealth than energy efficiency.
Well, environmental ills such as desertification and habitat destruction are known effects of global warming.
Well, it is strongly suspected by us that this is true and I grant that it probably is. But the claims I've seen indicate to me about two orders of magnitude smaller effect from global warming contribution to the other two problems. It would be nice to slow down desertification and habitat destruction by a few percent in addition to our other efforts. But if that means (and I think it does) that we grow poverty considerably in the process, then it's counterproductive.
Migration isn't part of evolution any more than hibernation or defecation is.
This is called moving the goalpost. Migration enables selection by allowing some organisms to preferentially survive and reproduce by not being in places that suck more.
Selection is one of the three key parts of evolution. Hence, that makes migration a cause of evolution, a thing I said. Note I never said that migration is part of evolution. That a thing you said.
Also, since this seems to be part of the error of your thinking, migration is more than just the action of moving from one place to another. It is also the traits that enable that migration such as behavior and physical characteristics. A number of organisms such as herd animals and many bird species have evolved to specialize in migration.
See? Logic and reason. That makes me authoritative enough.
Why would it be "no reason"? The two crops aren't particularly different aside from climate preference. My view would be that a very successfully demonstration of growing one crop is a good reason to expect that you can grow a similar crop in the suitable environment. As to the saying about comparing apples to oranges, surely that started as a practical joke.
But when you're talking about flying an engine 40+ times... there aren't really any such previously known but unused techniques. They're headed off into largely unexplored regions of engineering and technology.
And SpaceX has demonstrated that it is capable of doing that for a surprisingly low cost.
Let's not get hasty here. Who is claiming that NASA learned any lessons from the Shuttle? Any such knowledge will safely get flushed down the drains of time.
This story is a traditional media style that people knowledgeable of rocketry history will recognize. Someone tries something adventurous or daring, and a bored and lazy reporter gets a NASA suit who knows little to nothing about the project to say it's impossible.
Find an authoritative source that says migration is a cause of evolution
Here, you go. The only thing sadder, I think, than your insistence on an "authoritative source" is your inability to rationally argue your side of the argument. Argument from authority is not a way to reason and it shows.
Similarly, it is impossible for Climate Science to be a fraud.
Paleoclimate data is the obvious counterexample. The field is dominated by a few, government-funded organizations. We don't have solid climate measurements of any sort before about 1850. This leaves the field wide open to chicanery.
If the climate record did not indicate the currently calculated levels of secondary feedback then somebody, somewhere would have noted that.
The climate record of the last twenty years is one such counterexample and it has been noted. What I think is significant about it is that the future can't be controlled. That is precisely where you'd expect to see the greatest deviation between claims about climate and our perception of those results. And we do see large deviations from the predictions to the actual climate changes of this period.
According to the EU Website the 34 billion euros is the entire budget for climate adaptation, technology and mitigation, not the research budget. I guess someone lied to you.
I did say there would be plenty to spare. It's not expensive to buy scientists. And I did say that this money was going to "explicit climate change related spending".
Contrast that with climate denial. We KNOW that Anthony Watts receives a salary to post lies on his popular blog wattsupwiththat - a salary provided by the Heritage Foundation. Nobody denies it. We know how much money "Lord" Monkton makes by his travelling circus. We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication. We know that the claims of these salaried/entrepreneurial PR agents wiht respect to alternative explanations for climate change have been refuted - every single claim.
So you can do ad hominem attacks. Can you do real, honest, rational argument?
You know that you are arguing from a fundamentally dishonest point of view for your own petty aims that literally is endangering the lives of all our (my) descendants.
And I think you're an idiot who isn't in a position to make that determination. My "petty aims" include reduction of global poverty to levels seen in developed world societies, reversal of population growth, strong reductions in government and societal corruption, and addressing more serious environmental ills such as desertification, habitat destruction, and pollution.
But by all means, let's consider your typical first world problem. Where's the evidence that global warming should be considered a problem that is necessary of action today?
That would make a bunch of sense if the sheer amount of human CO2 emissions wasn't so massive.
Compared to what? It's massive, if you're trying to physically move that much mass, but it isn't massive IMHO compared to the problems I noted.
we live on this planet, so it makes a lot of sense to not mess it up.
And if CO2 emissions aren't really messing up the planet in a significant way, then we have better things we could be doing along these lines. As you might have guessed by this point, I think the concern about CO2 emissions are greatly overblown and that there are much bigger problems we should be (and actually are) addressing instead such as poverty and overpopulation.
If us dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to increase (and hence the problem)
There is no single "The Problem". And the bigger problems, such as poverty and overpopulation, have solutions that currently depend on elevated generation of greenhouse gases. We can crudely divide countries by whether they're near the bleeding edge in wealth and well being of their citizens or not and whether they care enough about global warming to make any sacrifices. It turns out the only parties willing to make sacrifices are those who are wealthy (such as the EU) or under the climate gun (such as Bangladesh or Micronesia). This leads to the first observation - wealth leads to societies that care about the global environment.
Similarly, it is well known that wealthy societies have a lower fertility and population growth than the poorer societies to the point of neutral and even negative population growth. Eliminating poverty solves overpopulation.
Meanwhile, if we look at the relation between overpopulation and global warming, we see that global warming doesn't even make sense without overpopulation. If the population were a factor of ten less, then everyone could have the living standard and CO2 footprint of a US citizen (among the higher per capita groups out there) and still produce less CO2 than today. Eliminating overpopulation solves global warming.
And that leads us to the great chain of problem solving. Solving poverty at least to the developed world level solves overpopulation which solves global warming and a host of similar global-scale problems.
So my answer to the above is "Don't hold back for global warming". Deal with poverty first and foremost and you cut the head off this particular snake.
The honest truth of the skeptical position: "There's a problem but I'd rather leave it for future generations to solve than get off my arse" sounds a bit amoral, and hence we never hear that spoken out loud. Admit you have a problem and move on.
That's not the honest truth of the skeptical position. And how much moral responsibility should we have to future generations? I don't think it is right for us to make sacrifices for paltry benefits for future generations and some of the alleged sacrifices today probably impoverish those future generations rather than help them.
On the other hand, the US has that amazing auto-based transportation system which comes in large part from the era of Eisenhower, a bigger infrastructure builder than FDR.
FDR built dams, quaint Natural Park Service buildings, and held back US industry for half a decade. Eisenhower helped build the modern US.
Why settle for an inferior transportation system when the problem, such as it is, is finding a renewable fuel for automobiles?
just after speaking about the ice ages that various animals survived - how do you know they happened?
We see evidence of the glacial activity. We don't have similar evidence for pretty much the entire field of paleoclimatology. Nobody had their thermometer out in 23,000 BCE to confirm the claims made these days.
but you admit that animals have only "adapted" by moving. That's not the same thing as evolving.
I see you don't know what evolving means. Mobility and behaviors that encourage certain sorts of movement patterns are classic evolution responses to selection pressure from being in a place that sucks.
There may be no habitat left for some species, and then they have nowhere to move to.
That's fine. They go extinct just like they would for any other reason that leaves them with no habitat to move to. It's not a climate change problem, but rather an inability to adapt problem.
You could have a stable system in which the greenhouse effect is present at a constant level, and the climate is not changing at all.
We don't have that stable system. As I noted, anticipating this very concern, the greenhouse effect is not present at a constant level (more accurately, the dynamics leading to the greenhouse accumulate some degree of heat on Earth) resulting in warming on a global scale which is climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
The statement that taking steps to address climate change will grow poverty is false, and you know this.
Where would I get this alleged knowledge from? It hasn't happened on Earth. For example, the Germans tried it and almost doubled the cost of their electricity. That hurts poor people more than it hurts the rich (since electricity purchasing is more of their budget), as you should know.
A worldwide program to develop and implement the new technologies necessary would create jobs and entire industries everywhere, as well as help undeveloped countries develop - sustainably.
But would it create as many jobs as the absence of such a worldwide program? I doubt it. You have to do a proper accounting here. The jobs created have to be balanced against the jobs destroyed. If I'm spending more for my energy, then I have less to spend on creating new jobs. If a highly productive job to build valuable materials out of fossil fuels is replaced with a job to climb buildings and install low value solar installations, then that is a net loss for society.
This is an example of a bizarre sort of fallacy. If I want it, then it must be good for everyone else too. When are you going to recognize that your renewable energy idea has been tried for decades and has yet to work? Do nothing is a powerful strategy. You have to show more than a few hopes of unicorns and rainbows while making ridiculous projections about people you disagree with.
Now, nothing is an *evolutionary response* unless it involves the the changing of an inherited trait. For life as we know it, that means a change to the genome or gene expression. Please see the "mainstream" definition of evolution.
Modern definitions of evolution are just elaborations of the basic system: there are traits which can be inherited by new generations, means for modifying those traits, and selection pressure which differentially filters traits. There's no point to your semantics game. Just because inherited traits are passed along by genes (and a few other mechanisms) doesn't mean that the characteristics I mention can't be so passed on.
If everything that could cause a selective pressure ("enables selection") were a cause of evolution, then literally everything in the universe that a lifeform interacts with in any way could qualify as well.
Here's a protip: it does. ANYTHING which allows organisms with certain traits to fare better and pass their genes further than organisms with other traits is selection.
No, migration IS just the action of moving from one place to another. It has nothing to do with the traits of any animals.
The obvious counterexamples are the traits of legs and wings.
It's really depressing knowledge, honestly.
Not at all. Knowledge is power with which to change us and our world for the better. You just need to get that knowledge first.
Are you seriously so completely ignorant as to think that represents a reasoned argument?
The thing is, building and successfully flying a rocket is not all that different from building and flying a partially reusable rocket. They require the same sorts of skills, experience and infrastructure to do. Just like an apple producer is not all that different from an orange producer.
Thus, I consider SpaceX's previous successes a strong indication that it can develop the reusable technologies that it is trying to develop.
Further, SpaceX has already progressed on this front. Apparently in the Falcon 9 launch this April, the first stage successfully went through all the stages of a so-called "soft landing" aside from a sea-based recovery (it was lost in bad weather). That's a substantial step towards a fully reusable rocket.
Finally, we need to keep in mind that SpaceX got a good portion of the best and brightest in rocketry. Being able to design, build, and launch a rocket in your own lifetime is a pretty strong selling point for an employer. Those naysayers at NASA are the leftovers.
Are you seriously relying on these folks for your argument? Oh - I see that you have indeed referenced Watt's fraudulent and deceptive write up re: the paper by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett and Francis W. Zwiers. I guess that stung a bit. Not the first time I've had to rub someones nose in it for that particular mistake over that particular paper.
What a shitty standard for fraud. I match your pathetic claim with Mann and Jones "hockey stick" paper. There's the evidence of "fraud" that meets your low standards.
Yes, but that stable system example proves that the greenhouse effect is not rightfully considered to be a form of climate change.
No, because the stable system example is not the real Earth example - at least on a global scale.
The trees in my area of the world aren't very good at moving 200m straight up nor 300km north.
I guess you must have unusually slow trees. The trees in my area are quite adept at it. They do things like drop pine cones which then are eaten by bears and porcupines, and defecated miles away.
I'm sure you're just thinking that the trees will reseed themselves farther north or south, as the case may be.
This.
Does everything have to be an argument from personal incredulity with you people?
You ask this just after you demonstrated that you were materially wrong in your original assertion? There's always a catch to the sort of crap you just failed to pull off. One gets a nose for it after a while.
Also, we still have the little interesting fact that this propaganda strategy (of relabeling "global warming" as "climate change") is being used. It's just not being used by the characters of your little story.
Personally, I've decided that field of climatology and supporters of the "climate change" ideology won't give me a straight answer for the near future and that it's not worth the effort to evaluate the current batch of arguments. Your little game here is just another little bit of confirmation for my choice.
I'm waiting for real evidence. If it means that we have problems in the future because of the delay, so be it. I hope some day you'll decide to join me in sincere debate.
but instead cross-financed trough averaging production costs of non-renewables and renwables.
Subsidy via rent seeking in other words. The money comes from electricity customers (those high electricity prices I noted). When government gives you with something of value, it's a subsidy.
Second, It does not make sense to compare the price per kWh when the overall effiency is so vastly different to the USA :While I am paying about .29EUR per kWh on my renewables-only plan, in absolute numbers that amounts to only 40EUR per month on electricity for a 4 person household.
No. Don't even bother with such a dumb argument. If the US had to pay such prices, they would tighten up on the consumption as well. What you miss here is that this efficiency comes at a cost. Electricity is used more efficiently, but other resources, particularly human effort and time, are used less efficiently. I note also that you mention a lot of higher cost items in your home (the "well insulated house, efficient appliences, LED lighting everywhere, efficient computers"). Your money may not be valuable to you, but my money is valuable to me. And I imagine, push comes to shove, most Germans would rather have wealth than energy efficiency.
Well, environmental ills such as desertification and habitat destruction are known effects of global warming.
Well, it is strongly suspected by us that this is true and I grant that it probably is. But the claims I've seen indicate to me about two orders of magnitude smaller effect from global warming contribution to the other two problems. It would be nice to slow down desertification and habitat destruction by a few percent in addition to our other efforts. But if that means (and I think it does) that we grow poverty considerably in the process, then it's counterproductive.
Migration isn't part of evolution any more than hibernation or defecation is.
This is called moving the goalpost. Migration enables selection by allowing some organisms to preferentially survive and reproduce by not being in places that suck more.
Selection is one of the three key parts of evolution. Hence, that makes migration a cause of evolution, a thing I said. Note I never said that migration is part of evolution. That a thing you said.
Also, since this seems to be part of the error of your thinking, migration is more than just the action of moving from one place to another. It is also the traits that enable that migration such as behavior and physical characteristics. A number of organisms such as herd animals and many bird species have evolved to specialize in migration.
See? Logic and reason. That makes me authoritative enough.
Why would it be "no reason"? The two crops aren't particularly different aside from climate preference. My view would be that a very successfully demonstration of growing one crop is a good reason to expect that you can grow a similar crop in the suitable environment. As to the saying about comparing apples to oranges, surely that started as a practical joke.
But when you're talking about flying an engine 40+ times... there aren't really any such previously known but unused techniques. They're headed off into largely unexplored regions of engineering and technology.
And SpaceX has demonstrated that it is capable of doing that for a surprisingly low cost.
Let's not get hasty here. Who is claiming that NASA learned any lessons from the Shuttle? Any such knowledge will safely get flushed down the drains of time.
This story is a traditional media style that people knowledgeable of rocketry history will recognize. Someone tries something adventurous or daring, and a bored and lazy reporter gets a NASA suit who knows little to nothing about the project to say it's impossible.
Find an authoritative source that says migration is a cause of evolution
Here, you go. The only thing sadder, I think, than your insistence on an "authoritative source" is your inability to rationally argue your side of the argument. Argument from authority is not a way to reason and it shows.
Similarly, it is impossible for Climate Science to be a fraud.
Paleoclimate data is the obvious counterexample. The field is dominated by a few, government-funded organizations. We don't have solid climate measurements of any sort before about 1850. This leaves the field wide open to chicanery.
If the climate record did not indicate the currently calculated levels of secondary feedback then somebody, somewhere would have noted that.
The climate record of the last twenty years is one such counterexample and it has been noted. What I think is significant about it is that the future can't be controlled. That is precisely where you'd expect to see the greatest deviation between claims about climate and our perception of those results. And we do see large deviations from the predictions to the actual climate changes of this period.
According to the EU Website the 34 billion euros is the entire budget for climate adaptation, technology and mitigation, not the research budget. I guess someone lied to you.
I did say there would be plenty to spare. It's not expensive to buy scientists. And I did say that this money was going to "explicit climate change related spending".
Contrast that with climate denial. We KNOW that Anthony Watts receives a salary to post lies on his popular blog wattsupwiththat - a salary provided by the Heritage Foundation. Nobody denies it. We know how much money "Lord" Monkton makes by his travelling circus. We know that Judith Curry was lying when she said she had seen AR5 prior to publication. We know that the claims of these salaried/entrepreneurial PR agents wiht respect to alternative explanations for climate change have been refuted - every single claim.
So you can do ad hominem attacks. Can you do real, honest, rational argument?
I've never seen migration listed as a cause of evolution.
Well, you just did so that deficiency has just been fixed.
by our habitat destruction
Ah, good, at least you've heard of real problems. Keep up the good work.
It's a typical limitation of human's thought that they desire to think the worst of opponents. Get over that limitation.
You know that you are arguing from a fundamentally dishonest point of view for your own petty aims that literally is endangering the lives of all our (my) descendants.
And I think you're an idiot who isn't in a position to make that determination. My "petty aims" include reduction of global poverty to levels seen in developed world societies, reversal of population growth, strong reductions in government and societal corruption, and addressing more serious environmental ills such as desertification, habitat destruction, and pollution.
But by all means, let's consider your typical first world problem. Where's the evidence that global warming should be considered a problem that is necessary of action today?
That would make a bunch of sense if the sheer amount of human CO2 emissions wasn't so massive.
Compared to what? It's massive, if you're trying to physically move that much mass, but it isn't massive IMHO compared to the problems I noted.
we live on this planet, so it makes a lot of sense to not mess it up.
And if CO2 emissions aren't really messing up the planet in a significant way, then we have better things we could be doing along these lines. As you might have guessed by this point, I think the concern about CO2 emissions are greatly overblown and that there are much bigger problems we should be (and actually are) addressing instead such as poverty and overpopulation.
If us dumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is causing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to increase (and hence the problem)
There is no single "The Problem". And the bigger problems, such as poverty and overpopulation, have solutions that currently depend on elevated generation of greenhouse gases. We can crudely divide countries by whether they're near the bleeding edge in wealth and well being of their citizens or not and whether they care enough about global warming to make any sacrifices. It turns out the only parties willing to make sacrifices are those who are wealthy (such as the EU) or under the climate gun (such as Bangladesh or Micronesia). This leads to the first observation - wealth leads to societies that care about the global environment.
Similarly, it is well known that wealthy societies have a lower fertility and population growth than the poorer societies to the point of neutral and even negative population growth. Eliminating poverty solves overpopulation.
Meanwhile, if we look at the relation between overpopulation and global warming, we see that global warming doesn't even make sense without overpopulation. If the population were a factor of ten less, then everyone could have the living standard and CO2 footprint of a US citizen (among the higher per capita groups out there) and still produce less CO2 than today. Eliminating overpopulation solves global warming.
And that leads us to the great chain of problem solving. Solving poverty at least to the developed world level solves overpopulation which solves global warming and a host of similar global-scale problems.
So my answer to the above is "Don't hold back for global warming". Deal with poverty first and foremost and you cut the head off this particular snake.
The honest truth of the skeptical position: "There's a problem but I'd rather leave it for future generations to solve than get off my arse" sounds a bit amoral, and hence we never hear that spoken out loud. Admit you have a problem and move on.
That's not the honest truth of the skeptical position. And how much moral responsibility should we have to future generations? I don't think it is right for us to make sacrifices for paltry benefits for future generations and some of the alleged sacrifices today probably impoverish those future generations rather than help them.
On the other hand, the US has that amazing auto-based transportation system which comes in large part from the era of Eisenhower, a bigger infrastructure builder than FDR. FDR built dams, quaint Natural Park Service buildings, and held back US industry for half a decade. Eisenhower helped build the modern US.
Why settle for an inferior transportation system when the problem, such as it is, is finding a renewable fuel for automobiles?
Don't mistake the idiots that run things for the people who have a clue.
The "idiots" that run things pay for the people who have a clue. When an adviser has another master, then his counsel becomes suspect.
just after speaking about the ice ages that various animals survived - how do you know they happened?
We see evidence of the glacial activity. We don't have similar evidence for pretty much the entire field of paleoclimatology. Nobody had their thermometer out in 23,000 BCE to confirm the claims made these days.
but you admit that animals have only "adapted" by moving. That's not the same thing as evolving.
I see you don't know what evolving means. Mobility and behaviors that encourage certain sorts of movement patterns are classic evolution responses to selection pressure from being in a place that sucks.
There may be no habitat left for some species, and then they have nowhere to move to.
That's fine. They go extinct just like they would for any other reason that leaves them with no habitat to move to. It's not a climate change problem, but rather an inability to adapt problem.
You could have a stable system in which the greenhouse effect is present at a constant level, and the climate is not changing at all.
We don't have that stable system. As I noted, anticipating this very concern, the greenhouse effect is not present at a constant level (more accurately, the dynamics leading to the greenhouse accumulate some degree of heat on Earth) resulting in warming on a global scale which is climate change.