Apples and oranges. You're talking about exceptions. I'm talking about the rule.
Well, you claim here that rich people are incomparable because they live in different place. I don't see the point of making such an intellectually limiting claim.
More taxes and regulations help the rest of the world? Well, I suppose in a sense by destroying the competitiveness of the US.
Sure, why not. The bottom line is that's how the rich helps the world. If you like rich people and rich people helping the rest of the world, you'll also have to like an uncompetitive US.
Ok then. I just lost interest in "helping" the rest of the world in this goofed up sense.
Well, your spiel doesn't seem to hold up well to "denier drivel". An appeal to authority is nice when the authority happens to be right, but doesn't work out so well when the authority is wrong.
Sometimes, though, this makes me long for a new Committee for Public Safety.
Maybe sociopaths who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks? I'm trying to point out how overstated the stated risks are. This will save lives, if only enough of the world listens. While you come up with ideas that kill people.
The worst case scenario is about 10 degrees C warming.
So? We have to consider what is likely and over what time frame. A worst case scenario that doesn't happen, isn't useful to us.
Any form of life on Earth has evolved to live between current temperatures and 6 degrees less.
So -40C to 40C more or less. I wonder with this alleged 10C rise in temperature, how much of the world will remain between those two temperatures? I imagine the vast majority of it.
How well do you think humans will do when the rest of the life on the planet is wiped out?
Why would the rest of life on the planet be wiped out? What is the mechanism? Slightly warmer temperatures? I just don't buy it.
I suggest you read the link again. We're approaching a tripping point in the biosphere. Such a rapid shift would lead to mass extinction.
Or not. The latter possibility seems more likely, especially if the tipping point isn't actually there.
A few decades or half a century is not plenty of time.
But several centuries or longer is.
There is no way of providing evidence for predictions that on a large part depends on how humans both as individuals and countries will react to global food shortages, mass starvation, etc. but there's a reason why the initial goal was to limit warming to +2C; anything beyond that was assumed to be outside our ability to mitigate.
By whom? Not by me obviously.
As for my last point: I was strictly talking about AGW and other environmental damage we as humans do. While AGW is a significant factor in acidification of the ocean, destruction of breeding grounds for fish and the reduction of arable land, it doesn't play a significant role in your transaction with Starbucks.
What makes you think it has a significant effect on the other aspects? There's a lot of talking here and not a lot of evidence.
The increase in extreme weather, food prices and starvation caused by the very small changes we already are observing points to extreme difficulties handling even a 2C increase.
There's no evidence of either a 2C increase (the experts are claiming 0.8C since the beginning of the industrial age) nor of AGW causing any increases in these other effects. Why blame AGW for extreme weather, when observation bias and bad public flood insurance policy in the US explains it quite nicely? Why blame AGW for food prices when remarkably bad ethanol subsidies are the obvious cause? Why blame AGW for starvation when the painfully obvious problem is the societies which are interfering with the distribution of food and destroying the wealth of their inhabitants?
Stopping the collapse of our source of marine proteins is extremely important,
Then stop overfishing of natural stock and farm more fish.
and the most important action required right now is regulation of fishing in south-east and east Asia.
Oh look, a problem that is completely unrelated to AGW. That can't possibly exist.
Reducing CO2 levels in the ocean comes 2nd (possible shared with reduction of mercury pollution). But unless we do all of it we will get serious problems down the line.
Well, better show an argument for this. Don't just say it.
That's a tautology. Americans ARE the rich people. Even an American on welfare gets to live a much better life than many people in the world.
And many people in the world outside of the US are richer than the American on welfare. Americans are no more "the" rich people than anyone else with a lot of wealth.
I'd start with cutting spending and debt. Then do something about the "more taxes and regulations" which clearly is counterproductive.
So helping the rest of the world is counterproductive?
More taxes and regulations help the rest of the world? Well, I suppose in a sense by destroying the competitiveness of the US.
Fuel is cheap: rocket designers dream of a future where fuel will be the primary cost of launching things into space.
That will only happen, if you're not throwing away a vehicle every time you launch. Else you have to add the cost of the vehicle to the launch. This is where Skylon comes in. It's a completely reusable vehicle. What it doesn't have currently is a market which justifies spending ten billion dollars or euros. You have to have a lot of launches before the development costs become a small part of overall launch costs.
The IPCC always said that various positive feedbacks were not included because the science wasn't clear enough. That always implied that the AR projections were the best possible case, and don't forget that those were the consensus opinion - meaning that if the Saudi delegates didn't agree it wouldn't go in the AR.
Well, if the IPCC says the science wasn't clear enough, then it probably was pretty bad.
I just hope the AR5 will be a little more realistic and a wake-up call.
Maybe a bit less alarmist? Oh, not that sort of realistic? I'm just looking forward to the time when the "executive summary" matches what's actually in the report.
WTF do you get that concentration for U - you are just throwing around numbers without saying where they came from PLUS you are totally ignoring isotopes and assuming all U is the most radioactive isotope which is definitely not the case.
I gave links, I gave calculations. I'm not ignoring isotopes. That figure is for the usual isotope mix of uranium that appears in most of nature. Hence, the use of the phrase "natural uranium". As for the rest of your empty accusations, why don't you do some work first?
If you had to evacuate the entire Netherlands, that would be 16 million people with worthless, unsaleable property trying to take refuge elsewhere, with a net loss of the space for 16 million people to live.
Well, sure, it'd be slightly different. There is a bit more worthless property than usually happens. But so what? It wouldn't be that big a deal. And it'd take place over a far longer period than three to four months.
Come out of your cave and look around. We're already seeing the effects now. Spring is earlier year by year. Glaciers are retreating. The entire surface of the Greenland ice cap shows melt in summer. Plant and animal species are moving north and towards high country (because they can, not because they are afraid).
You do realize we're still coming off of an ice age? That explains not just most of those effects, but all of them. Why, for example, should we expect plant and animal species to have stabilized a mere ten thousand years or less after ice has retreated and temperatures increase substantially?
Also note that these effects are observed by those who choose to look, they aren't noticeable to us as a civilization. We don't have to radically alter our civilization even if spring comes early or winter comes not at all.
AGW isn't like that. The damage builds up over time and continues to build even after you cut back. Every delay increases the costs that will occur.
But at no time has anyone indicated that AGW imposes a significant cost beyond what would occur if it got fixed as well as we can now. Just pointing that out.
And as I see it, a long drawn out, increasing cost over centuries can still be a lot cheaper than a huge cost imposed right now - just due to the time value of money involved. Delay would actually decrease the cost to us in that case.
Yup, rich people make things better for the rest of the world,
They only make things worse in the US, since when the rich do something better for the rest of the world, it'll eventually mean higher US government spending and debt, which means more taxes and regulations for the non-rich people (I say non-rich because it includes not just poor people - the middle class isn't spared)
Well, then that's a problem with the US, not rich people. I'd start with cutting spending and debt. Then do something about the "more taxes and regulations" which clearly is counterproductive.
It was almost a 90% drop in population due to war, famine, and all the other social effects that more and more evidence indicates were initially due to climate change.
You mean due to some variation of desertification (the destruction of arable land) which is still a more serious problem than current climate change dangers.
Extinction level events caused by AGW have been part of the debate the past ten years at least.
No, it hasn't and your link doesn't support your assertion. I honestly don't know where this concern over extinction comes from, but it's not from actual science done on AGW or its consequences.
The sea level rises are in line with the worst case scenarios from the consensus based IPCC report. If the estimates in the IPCC report are shown to be too conservative with regards to sea level rise, it's likely the other predictions also are too low.
And if the consensus-based IPCC report is too pessimistic in its estimates, then it's likely that these other predictions are also too high.
It has been estimated previously that changes up to +2C will be manageable with our current technology and within the current political framework. Anything above that would cause long term harm, +4C has been viewed upon as the breaking-point for human civilization.
So what? There's no evidence that even the worst claimed temperature increases can break human civilization or even that we would notice them. Keep in mind that they aren't occurring overnight. There's plenty of time to adapt.
The main mechanisms for the fall of civilization (it's not caused by AGW alone, it's a combination of several factors that come together faster than we will be able to mitigate):
I find the inherent deceptiveness of this statement amusing. AGW and a total nuclear war might wipe out humanity. AGW and a huge asteroid impact might wipe out humanity. AGW and a virulent engineered plague might wipe out humanity. AGW and a sophisticated alien invasion might wipe out humanity.
My rebuttal to all this? AGW and $5 might buy you a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks. You are grouping AGW with far more serious problems and as a result getting far more serious consequences than if you considered AGW in isolation. The solution is to address these more important problems, not to divert your resources to solving AGW at the expense of the problems which truly threaten your civilization.
Where's the observations to back those assertions? What has been published so far indicates deep problems with US federal flood insurance (yes, it gets that particular), not an AGW issue.
There is general agreement that global warming made Sandy worse AND increased it chances to hit New York.
What's the point of making blatantly wrong statements? No one knows enough to make claims like yours. And the people interested in the seeking of scientific knowledge don't.
Without the strengthened standing system cause by the collapse of Arctic sea ice
An empty assertion especially given that Atlantic hurricanes have hit New York City before.
This is the first time that a tropical storm has been observed to follow the path that Sandy followed (or any similar path).
And if we had been watching tropical storms for any length of time (rather than less than a century), we probably would have seen the other storms that follow such paths.
Of course you do. You think that Global Warming doesn't exist and isn't a problem. Acknowledging that it is costing New York $42 billion dollars (or any portion thereof) would call into question your foundational beliefs which is why you can never admit when you're wrong.
I find it interesting how people randomly invent "facts" and then accuse me of never being able to admit I'm wrong. What opportunity have I had to be shown wrong? I have to be challenged first. You have to pull your weight not merely whine that I'm not fitting in the pathetic and unfounded narrative you've built up.
On a probabilistic basis, at least half of the storm damage clean up cost can be attributed to Global Warming. That's based on a rough estimate of the probably of New York being hit by a similar tropical storm or hurricane and an estimate of the increased damage done because of increased precipitation during the storm and increased water levels. That's at least $21 billion in costs that New York is suffering from Global Warming.
This isn't based on estimates, evidence, or anything else reality based. You have yet to show that this storm was even more likely to occur under AGW scenarios. To go from that to claim that $21 billion of damage is due to AGW is just a typical act of irresponsibility from the immature side of the AGW debate.
If you can't even acknowledge that global warming can cause damage, then obviously, you're always going to claim it's cheaper to do nothing because you can't even understand the alternative.
What is there to acknowledge? You haven't shown yet that there has been damage due to AGW. You just made a bunch of wild guesses and accusations that any reasoning human being would be embarrassed by.
We probably can't adapt, at record population levels, to a sudden reduction in the amount of food available during the gap between large amounts of currently arable land becoming unfarmable, and potentially farmable lands becoming arable. Just saying.
And you're an idiot. Just saying.
This is a fairly major problem and it doesn't get solved by pretending that once the crisis hits in ernest we'll somehow be able to dig our way out of it, any more than "Waiting until 1st January 2000 and fixing anything that goes wrong" would have been a sane approach to the Y2K problem.
We don't have to pretend. We would just do it as we have for the past few millennia. The Y2K problem has the virtue of actually being a problem with a straightforward, if somewhat costly solution.
Note also that Y2K was addressed in the last few years of the 90s. We didn't start dumping money on it in the 50s. One of the really big economic things that gets ignored is time value. Sometimes it really is worth putting off a cost until you have to pay it. That was the case with Y2K.
With extinction looming on the horizon if we do nothing
What's the mechanism? How does one go from modest sea level rises over long periods of time to extinction? No one has presented any threat related to AGW that is significant enough to cause human extinction. Instead it's all idle hysteria.
I think we're confused over what "optimistic" means. In my book, a weaker AGW effect is more optimistic not less optimistic. The consistent theme here is that the general population isn't drinking enough kool aid, so the threats have been dialed up to oh, 2 or 3.
Anyone not panicked at the thought of this IS A FOOL!
Says the hysterical fool. Sorry, I don't buy that.
Remember this ISN'T the bad this is the best we can expect for the next 100 years and it may get worse after that.
Who knows, it might even bad enough that we notice some of the effects within the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Okay from a liberal here's how bad it can get, ever see Road Warrior???? That's bad. Good is probably Soylent Green. Any questions????
Nope. Stupidity is not a good foundation for understanding or predicting reality.
I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.
So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.
Yes, that half a meter rise in sea level is going to just kill us all! -- in 90 years. Don't you ever bother to wonder why your fears are so badly exaggerated compared to the alleged threats?
It's remarkable how people claim that humans can't adapt to modest climate change (even though we've proven we can adapt to a lot more than that) or we can't move small numbers of people (for example, 16 million which is roughly how many people move in the US every three to four months).
Just tell those seas you don't believe in global we fucked up the climate change.
That's the cheap choice. And it's all we're gonna do.
Sounds more productive to me than trying to fix the alleged problem. Sometimes the cheap choice is truly the right choice. I believe that's the case now.
Slashdot Mirror
Apples and oranges. You're talking about exceptions. I'm talking about the rule.
Well, you claim here that rich people are incomparable because they live in different place. I don't see the point of making such an intellectually limiting claim.
More taxes and regulations help the rest of the world? Well, I suppose in a sense by destroying the competitiveness of the US.
Sure, why not. The bottom line is that's how the rich helps the world. If you like rich people and rich people helping the rest of the world, you'll also have to like an uncompetitive US.
Ok then. I just lost interest in "helping" the rest of the world in this goofed up sense.
Well, your spiel doesn't seem to hold up well to "denier drivel". An appeal to authority is nice when the authority happens to be right, but doesn't work out so well when the authority is wrong.
Sometimes, though, this makes me long for a new Committee for Public Safety.
Maybe sociopaths who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks? I'm trying to point out how overstated the stated risks are. This will save lives, if only enough of the world listens. While you come up with ideas that kill people.
Point of no return means: self accelerating (resonance catastrophe like) run away green house effect.
Ok, now we have an alleged mechanism though no evidence whatsoever for it. Provide evidence and then we'll have that mechanism I asked for.
The worst case scenario is about 10 degrees C warming.
So? We have to consider what is likely and over what time frame. A worst case scenario that doesn't happen, isn't useful to us.
Any form of life on Earth has evolved to live between current temperatures and 6 degrees less.
So -40C to 40C more or less. I wonder with this alleged 10C rise in temperature, how much of the world will remain between those two temperatures? I imagine the vast majority of it.
How well do you think humans will do when the rest of the life on the planet is wiped out?
Why would the rest of life on the planet be wiped out? What is the mechanism? Slightly warmer temperatures? I just don't buy it.
I suggest you read the link again. We're approaching a tripping point in the biosphere. Such a rapid shift would lead to mass extinction.
Or not. The latter possibility seems more likely, especially if the tipping point isn't actually there.
A few decades or half a century is not plenty of time.
But several centuries or longer is.
There is no way of providing evidence for predictions that on a large part depends on how humans both as individuals and countries will react to global food shortages, mass starvation, etc. but there's a reason why the initial goal was to limit warming to +2C; anything beyond that was assumed to be outside our ability to mitigate.
By whom? Not by me obviously.
As for my last point: I was strictly talking about AGW and other environmental damage we as humans do. While AGW is a significant factor in acidification of the ocean, destruction of breeding grounds for fish and the reduction of arable land, it doesn't play a significant role in your transaction with Starbucks.
What makes you think it has a significant effect on the other aspects? There's a lot of talking here and not a lot of evidence.
The increase in extreme weather, food prices and starvation caused by the very small changes we already are observing points to extreme difficulties handling even a 2C increase.
There's no evidence of either a 2C increase (the experts are claiming 0.8C since the beginning of the industrial age) nor of AGW causing any increases in these other effects. Why blame AGW for extreme weather, when observation bias and bad public flood insurance policy in the US explains it quite nicely? Why blame AGW for food prices when remarkably bad ethanol subsidies are the obvious cause? Why blame AGW for starvation when the painfully obvious problem is the societies which are interfering with the distribution of food and destroying the wealth of their inhabitants?
Stopping the collapse of our source of marine proteins is extremely important,
Then stop overfishing of natural stock and farm more fish.
and the most important action required right now is regulation of fishing in south-east and east Asia.
Oh look, a problem that is completely unrelated to AGW. That can't possibly exist.
Reducing CO2 levels in the ocean comes 2nd (possible shared with reduction of mercury pollution). But unless we do all of it we will get serious problems down the line.
Well, better show an argument for this. Don't just say it.
That's a tautology. Americans ARE the rich people. Even an American on welfare gets to live a much better life than many people in the world.
And many people in the world outside of the US are richer than the American on welfare. Americans are no more "the" rich people than anyone else with a lot of wealth.
I'd start with cutting spending and debt. Then do something about the "more taxes and regulations" which clearly is counterproductive.
So helping the rest of the world is counterproductive?
More taxes and regulations help the rest of the world? Well, I suppose in a sense by destroying the competitiveness of the US.
Fuel is cheap: rocket designers dream of a future where fuel will be the primary cost of launching things into space.
That will only happen, if you're not throwing away a vehicle every time you launch. Else you have to add the cost of the vehicle to the launch. This is where Skylon comes in. It's a completely reusable vehicle. What it doesn't have currently is a market which justifies spending ten billion dollars or euros. You have to have a lot of launches before the development costs become a small part of overall launch costs.
The IPCC always said that various positive feedbacks were not included because the science wasn't clear enough. That always implied that the AR projections were the best possible case, and don't forget that those were the consensus opinion - meaning that if the Saudi delegates didn't agree it wouldn't go in the AR.
Well, if the IPCC says the science wasn't clear enough, then it probably was pretty bad.
I just hope the AR5 will be a little more realistic and a wake-up call.
Maybe a bit less alarmist? Oh, not that sort of realistic? I'm just looking forward to the time when the "executive summary" matches what's actually in the report.
WTF do you get that concentration for U - you are just throwing around numbers without saying where they came from PLUS you are totally ignoring isotopes and assuming all U is the most radioactive isotope which is definitely not the case.
I gave links, I gave calculations. I'm not ignoring isotopes. That figure is for the usual isotope mix of uranium that appears in most of nature. Hence, the use of the phrase "natural uranium". As for the rest of your empty accusations, why don't you do some work first?
If you had to evacuate the entire Netherlands, that would be 16 million people with worthless, unsaleable property trying to take refuge elsewhere, with a net loss of the space for 16 million people to live.
Well, sure, it'd be slightly different. There is a bit more worthless property than usually happens. But so what? It wouldn't be that big a deal. And it'd take place over a far longer period than three to four months.
Come out of your cave and look around. We're already seeing the effects now. Spring is earlier year by year. Glaciers are retreating. The entire surface of the Greenland ice cap shows melt in summer. Plant and animal species are moving north and towards high country (because they can, not because they are afraid).
You do realize we're still coming off of an ice age? That explains not just most of those effects, but all of them. Why, for example, should we expect plant and animal species to have stabilized a mere ten thousand years or less after ice has retreated and temperatures increase substantially?
Also note that these effects are observed by those who choose to look, they aren't noticeable to us as a civilization. We don't have to radically alter our civilization even if spring comes early or winter comes not at all.
AGW isn't like that. The damage builds up over time and continues to build even after you cut back. Every delay increases the costs that will occur.
But at no time has anyone indicated that AGW imposes a significant cost beyond what would occur if it got fixed as well as we can now. Just pointing that out.
And as I see it, a long drawn out, increasing cost over centuries can still be a lot cheaper than a huge cost imposed right now - just due to the time value of money involved. Delay would actually decrease the cost to us in that case.
Yup, rich people make things better for the rest of the world,
They only make things worse in the US, since when the rich do something better for the rest of the world, it'll eventually mean higher US government spending and debt, which means more taxes and regulations for the non-rich people (I say non-rich because it includes not just poor people - the middle class isn't spared)
Well, then that's a problem with the US, not rich people. I'd start with cutting spending and debt. Then do something about the "more taxes and regulations" which clearly is counterproductive.
It was almost a 90% drop in population due to war, famine, and all the other social effects that more and more evidence indicates were initially due to climate change.
You mean due to some variation of desertification (the destruction of arable land) which is still a more serious problem than current climate change dangers.
Extinction level events caused by AGW have been part of the debate the past ten years at least.
No, it hasn't and your link doesn't support your assertion. I honestly don't know where this concern over extinction comes from, but it's not from actual science done on AGW or its consequences.
The sea level rises are in line with the worst case scenarios from the consensus based IPCC report. If the estimates in the IPCC report are shown to be too conservative with regards to sea level rise, it's likely the other predictions also are too low.
And if the consensus-based IPCC report is too pessimistic in its estimates, then it's likely that these other predictions are also too high.
It has been estimated previously that changes up to +2C will be manageable with our current technology and within the current political framework. Anything above that would cause long term harm, +4C has been viewed upon as the breaking-point for human civilization.
So what? There's no evidence that even the worst claimed temperature increases can break human civilization or even that we would notice them. Keep in mind that they aren't occurring overnight. There's plenty of time to adapt.
The main mechanisms for the fall of civilization (it's not caused by AGW alone, it's a combination of several factors that come together faster than we will be able to mitigate):
I find the inherent deceptiveness of this statement amusing. AGW and a total nuclear war might wipe out humanity. AGW and a huge asteroid impact might wipe out humanity. AGW and a virulent engineered plague might wipe out humanity. AGW and a sophisticated alien invasion might wipe out humanity.
My rebuttal to all this? AGW and $5 might buy you a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks. You are grouping AGW with far more serious problems and as a result getting far more serious consequences than if you considered AGW in isolation. The solution is to address these more important problems, not to divert your resources to solving AGW at the expense of the problems which truly threaten your civilization.
Where's the observations to back those assertions? What has been published so far indicates deep problems with US federal flood insurance (yes, it gets that particular), not an AGW issue.
There is general agreement that global warming made Sandy worse AND increased it chances to hit New York.
What's the point of making blatantly wrong statements? No one knows enough to make claims like yours. And the people interested in the seeking of scientific knowledge don't.
Without the strengthened standing system cause by the collapse of Arctic sea ice
An empty assertion especially given that Atlantic hurricanes have hit New York City before.
This is the first time that a tropical storm has been observed to follow the path that Sandy followed (or any similar path).
And if we had been watching tropical storms for any length of time (rather than less than a century), we probably would have seen the other storms that follow such paths.
Of course you do. You think that Global Warming doesn't exist and isn't a problem. Acknowledging that it is costing New York $42 billion dollars (or any portion thereof) would call into question your foundational beliefs which is why you can never admit when you're wrong.
I find it interesting how people randomly invent "facts" and then accuse me of never being able to admit I'm wrong. What opportunity have I had to be shown wrong? I have to be challenged first. You have to pull your weight not merely whine that I'm not fitting in the pathetic and unfounded narrative you've built up.
On a probabilistic basis, at least half of the storm damage clean up cost can be attributed to Global Warming. That's based on a rough estimate of the probably of New York being hit by a similar tropical storm or hurricane and an estimate of the increased damage done because of increased precipitation during the storm and increased water levels. That's at least $21 billion in costs that New York is suffering from Global Warming.
This isn't based on estimates, evidence, or anything else reality based. You have yet to show that this storm was even more likely to occur under AGW scenarios. To go from that to claim that $21 billion of damage is due to AGW is just a typical act of irresponsibility from the immature side of the AGW debate.
If you can't even acknowledge that global warming can cause damage, then obviously, you're always going to claim it's cheaper to do nothing because you can't even understand the alternative.
What is there to acknowledge? You haven't shown yet that there has been damage due to AGW. You just made a bunch of wild guesses and accusations that any reasoning human being would be embarrassed by.
We probably can't adapt, at record population levels, to a sudden reduction in the amount of food available during the gap between large amounts of currently arable land becoming unfarmable, and potentially farmable lands becoming arable. Just saying.
And you're an idiot. Just saying.
This is a fairly major problem and it doesn't get solved by pretending that once the crisis hits in ernest we'll somehow be able to dig our way out of it, any more than "Waiting until 1st January 2000 and fixing anything that goes wrong" would have been a sane approach to the Y2K problem.
We don't have to pretend. We would just do it as we have for the past few millennia. The Y2K problem has the virtue of actually being a problem with a straightforward, if somewhat costly solution.
Note also that Y2K was addressed in the last few years of the 90s. We didn't start dumping money on it in the 50s. One of the really big economic things that gets ignored is time value. Sometimes it really is worth putting off a cost until you have to pay it. That was the case with Y2K.
What does that story have to do with AGW? As I see it, it is a cost that would happen anyway.
That the rich and powerful of the US are abusing the rest of the world, I will not deny.
Don't worry, I'll do it for you. I deny the above. Instead, I'll point out that the rest of the world is far better off because of those people.
With extinction looming on the horizon if we do nothing
What's the mechanism? How does one go from modest sea level rises over long periods of time to extinction? No one has presented any threat related to AGW that is significant enough to cause human extinction. Instead it's all idle hysteria.
Every estimate has been overly optimistic.
I think we're confused over what "optimistic" means. In my book, a weaker AGW effect is more optimistic not less optimistic. The consistent theme here is that the general population isn't drinking enough kool aid, so the threats have been dialed up to oh, 2 or 3.
Anyone not panicked at the thought of this IS A FOOL!
Says the hysterical fool. Sorry, I don't buy that.
Remember this ISN'T the bad this is the best we can expect for the next 100 years and it may get worse after that.
Who knows, it might even bad enough that we notice some of the effects within the lifetimes of our grandchildren.
Okay from a liberal here's how bad it can get, ever see Road Warrior???? That's bad. Good is probably Soylent Green. Any questions????
Nope. Stupidity is not a good foundation for understanding or predicting reality.
I've grown extraordinarily pessimistic that anything can or will be done about climate change at this point, and my only thought at this point is that we just need to enjoy what we can until the inevitable self-inflicted pain and suffering we will endure from its affects.
So let's all party for tomorrow we may die.
Yes, that half a meter rise in sea level is going to just kill us all! -- in 90 years. Don't you ever bother to wonder why your fears are so badly exaggerated compared to the alleged threats?
It's remarkable how people claim that humans can't adapt to modest climate change (even though we've proven we can adapt to a lot more than that) or we can't move small numbers of people (for example, 16 million which is roughly how many people move in the US every three to four months).
Just tell those seas you don't believe in global we fucked up the climate change.
That's the cheap choice. And it's all we're gonna do.
Sounds more productive to me than trying to fix the alleged problem. Sometimes the cheap choice is truly the right choice. I believe that's the case now.