Apparently the largest majority ever thinks that Bush's way of running things IS in their interest, whether you foreigners like that or not.
In running a business I'd prefer honesty, integrity, truthfulness, faithfulness and other moral qualities FAR above *any* of the other qualifications a potential employee might have or need to possess to do a given job. In running the "business" of a great country like the USA, these moral qualities are the foundation of good leadership.
The founders of this nation and presidents like Abraham Lincoln valued integrity more highly than anything else and were willing to make great personal sacrifices to do the right thing. Maybe moral values don't count much where you are, but this election shows that most Americans still value moral integrity above economics.
...critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing"...
Stop insulting the majority of thinking Americans!!
I think your thinking skills need fixing rather than the millions of Americans who voted for Bush, the candidate with a consistent position rather than Kerry who was flip-flopping every time he opened his mouth.
....earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet....
I think the American people ought to be congratulated for doing just that, rather than dancing to the tunes of those who hate us enough to crash airplanes into our buildings. One reason they hate Bush so much is that he, unlike his predecessor is finally standing up to them and those that symphathize with them.
Worry about the economy was not much of a consideration of previous generations of Americans who were more concerned about freedom -- of themselves and others. Starting with the brave men of the revolutionary war, all through our history, freedom was the greater concern than mere money. In WW1 and World War 2, this country fought for freedom at a much greater cost than Iraq. Getting rid of Hitler and the Japanese miltary machine was very expensive in terms of money and especially in American lives and very few Americans complained, but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.
I cannot understand that the democratic party could not find a better candidate for president than Kerry. There have been some GREAT presidents who were democrats, such as Roosevelt and Kennedy. Most/.ers are probably too young or were not even here yet to remember the shock that went through the US when the popular John Kennedy was cut down by an assassin's bullet. I myself was young then, but will never forget that day. Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.
That will only happen if you continue to vote for legislators that would make such laws. Ultimately the voters can throw such out of office. We'll have to make sure that only persons that like to order pizza by phone get into office in the future.
Indeed, if the CIA, KGB, FBI, NSA, Gestapo etc. would do those things to me, they'd likely fall asleep of boredom and would likely miss finding REAL terrorists.
...popular is a property that may make a system safer...
Who cares WHY the Mac is safer, the fact is that it is safer and the reason doesn't really matter. If the time ever comes where Macs get somwhere as numerous as Windows boxes, (not likely at this point) more attempts to break into them may occur, but even right now, if the every Windows box magically turned into a Mac the number of malware infections would be WAY less because Macs have better security. This security is especially good against unassisted break-ins that occur into Windows boxes just because they are connected to the Internet, even in some cases for only a few minutes. No OS can ever be totally secure against social engineering that persuades authorized users to install unknown software.
I would call a breach the installation and execution of any software that the user/owner of the machine did not install of his/her own initiative or that did not come with the machine to begin with. A cleverly social engineered trojan/spyware/adware that tricks a user into installing and running it is still far different than some malware that can install itself and execute on a system just because that system is connected to the Internet. Any system, including Macs, can be compromised if the user/owner of the system can be persuaded to install some unknown programs.
They were also talking about desktop users in small businesses and homes with a fast, always on Internet connection. Out of the box, Macs come with most network software turned off, which makes them less vulnerable. Still, a well social engineered trojan can infect any system, if the user can be tricked into running the malware and giving or having the needed admin privileges to allow installation. No Mac is vulnerable to any of the self installing malware programs that will destroy or zombiefy a Windows box, sometimes in minutes after being connected to the Internet. I don't think it is possible to write a self-infecting malware for a Mac that doesn't require user interaction.
This is an old saw that is repeated endlessly. So what how many users OSX has, I can do my computing MUCH more safely than with Windows, and now according to this article, even Linux. The Linux stats surprised me. Who cares WHY my house doesn't get broken into. Is it because I live in a low crime area, have strong locks or nobody likes the things I have? The bottom line is that I sleep better at night not having to worry about getting broken into and getting ripped off.
It so happens that OSX DOES have better locks and is perceived by the cybercrooks as not being worth the trouble to get into, compared to all the unlocked Windows houses in the city. The crooks go from door to door and easily find the unlocked Windows houses, but all the doors on the Mac houses are locked and have to be forced upen. Criminals, cyber or otherwise try the easiest methods, because if they have to work hard, they might as well get an honest job.
Isn't it curious that very culture has some kind of religion? Man it seems is incurably religious. Why is it that many object to the possibility of an all powerful God? Is it not the thought that if there truly is such a God that a person might be accountable to Him for their behaviour?
If a person lives their life in a loving and good way to please God and then it turns out there is no God and no Heaven and no Hell, what has such a person lost? On the other hand if a person lives a selfish and unfruitful life with no regard to God and it turns out He is there after all, along with a heaven and a hell to which the sinner is now consigned forever, what is the better risk in how to live?
Either give up some short lived sinful pleasures in this life and live an upright life in relation to God or live as you please without regard to God and lose for eternity. Which odds are you taking?
You are not quite correct there. DNA is the CARRIER of information in the same sense that a floppy disk is the carrier of digital information. The disk is a carrier of binary information and the DNA carries a four level code. The information itself is distinct from the carrier and as such is not subject to some of the laws of physics. Information can be transmitted by a truck or a radio wave. If you accurately weigh a floppy, it will weigh exactly the same, whether it is erased or loaded with information, because information has no mass. Information itself cannot be corrupted or lost, only the carrier thereof can lose or garble it.
The question for evolutionists: Where did the incredible amounts of information come from that is stored in code on the DNA of humans and other living creatures.
Creationists belive this information came from a MIND commonly called GOD.
Even if that were true, any process, chemical, physical or biological requires the input of information which guides the process. Information cannot arise spontaneously and randomly, but requires a higher source of information. Matter + energy + INFORMATION = life. If the information is left out, there can be no life. Computers cannot program themselves, but need a programmer and the programs arise in the programmers MIND.
Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.
Random evolution has some fundamental problems. Here is one:
I have disk drive which contains all the information on how to build a disk drive, but how did the first disk drive get made if the information how to make one must be recorded on a disk drive first? The first disk drive must be fully functional at the outset in order to hold the instructions needed to build disk drives.
The life equivalent of a disk drive is DNA which carries the information for a given living organism. Just taking matter plus energy does not make life. It takes another ingredient: information. Information can only arise from another source of higher information. The DNA carries the instructions how to make proteins among other things, but DNA itself is made from proteins. So what came first, the DNA or the proteins which make up the DNA which carries the information of how to make proteins, including the many very complex proteins that make up the rods and cones of our eyes.
It is the microbiology equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. Somehow, somewwhere an intelligence must provide the information, then make DNA and then record the information on it so it can then make other proteins, including other DNA.
In my disk drive analogy, someone with enough skill to do so who also has the information on how to build a disk drive, must first make one and store the information how to make it thereon. After that the information is available to make more disk drives as well as other information can be stored to build a whole computer or an automobile. The information storage device must be built first and then all kinds of information can be put thereon for building other things.
This extension of the river beds onto and beyond the continental shelf also happened in areas that would have been frozen solid during the last ice age. There is also plenty of fossil and other evidence that the arctic areas of Earth were once tropical. Some of the living creatures in Siberia were entombed quickly by some cataclysm. They are preserved in their entirety like in a giant freezer. No slow process that we know about can preserve living matter so scientists can study these creatures from long ago. There are also numerous dinosaur remains found in the now frozen regions.
I have a big Atlas of the world put out by National Geographic which shows the known topography of the world's oceans. There is an under sea structure labelled the "Amazon Cone" which shows the continuation of the river bed outward far beyond the continental shelf. Other major rivers also have this under sea structure shown, such as the Mississippi and rivers on the west coast of Africa. The Nile river bed is also depicted on such a map extending far into the present Mediteranean. The Atlas was published back in 1975 and has no ISBN number listed. I have also seen some of these fascinating maps in the magazine some time ago. I'm sure that if you really want to check this out, and are willing to take the time to do so you can find such a map.
As far as warming, I am talking about the ultimate endpoint, where all the carbon that was once in the air is put there again to the extent that the air would be about 10% CO2. I doubt that this will happen because a lot of the buried carbon is unknown or inaccessible to man and will likely remain so for a long time.
As the greenhouse effect becomes greater, the climate will definitely get warmer and will have major effects on all inhabitants of spaceship earth. Some of these will be beneficial for some and some detrimental, but the amazing adaptability of living things will continue to cope with the changes of the future, just as they have in the past. In think that for most living creatures a warmer planet will be a positive thing. We are very transient residents of this world and the effects I am talking about would take place over many generations.
In the tropical areas of the world the saturation is generally quite high. At one time the whole Earth was much like the tropics of the Amazon and other warm wet places in the equatorial areas. The river bed of the Amazon continues on the present continental shelf of South America out for almost 200 miles. All of that is under water now, but at one time, the river flowed there. This is because the so much of the water was in the warm atmosphere and above it.
Water vapor is lighter than air; that is why clouds float upwards. When the air cools the it becomes supersaturated. Condensation takes place if there are particles around which drops can form, which eventually get too heavy and fall as rain. As the air gets warmer the upper atmosphere also gets warmer and so condensation level is much higher up where there is little or no dust to condense raindrops on. This means the upper atmosphere could be a layer of almost pure supersaturated water vapor. There is very little water in the upper atmosphere today, because the condensation level is low enough where there are plenty of particles around which raindrops can form and therefore the water continually precipitates out.
All geologic processes take a long time and extrapolating from our miniscule observation time perspective is an uncertain business.
There are a lot of ordinary humans living in the tropics today, not just alligators. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum. If the entire Earth gets to near that temperature, most species will not only survive, but thrive, including the likes of you!
I suspect however that mankind will not be able to find much of the fossil fuel that is buried in unknown or unaccessible spots and so the temperature is not likely to get that high. Also, as life proliferates because of the warmth, more carbon gets stored in the living matter and eventually there will be an equilibrium. As to the timeframe of all of this, nobody really knows, but it is happening very slowly now and will take a long time in human terms, like most geologic processes do.
There are fossils imbedded coal and remnants of living cells in oil, showing that these fuels were made by living processes.
If we burned all the fuel, the carbon content of the air might increase from the present 2% or so to perhaps 10%, but the amount of water vapor in the air would go up much more as the temperature increases. A hurricane demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be held in only a very small fraction of the atmosphere if the temperature is elevated. As the temperature rises over time, life forms become more prolific and the increased growth on land and the sea would accelerate the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Eventually things would reach some equilibrium.
Venus has a lot of methane in its atmosphere and is too close to the sun, so you would not want to go there.
The water held in the air is not available to flood anything. A warm humid atmosphere would make the temperature difference between the poles and the equator very small. There are TROPICAL fossils and fossil fuels in the arctic. How did they get there?
These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt over the many generations that such changes happen.
There are millons of humans enjoying life today in the tropical regions of the Earth. So what if the whole Earth once again becomes tropical. It would not happen suddenly so the succeeding generations of humans would get used to it and think of it as "normal" just as we consider today's climate normal.
There are well established formulas for calculating the water holding capacity if a given air mass at any temperature. A hurricane is a demonstration of the awesome water holding capability of a very small fraction of the Earth's atmosphere.
You and these scaremongers are assuming that warming is harmful. It is actually beneficial. There are tropical fossils in the arctic as well as fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These came from thriving living organisms that once lived in those areas. The carbon in all fuels was once in the atmosphere and now we are putting a small amount back. These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt.
There is no reason to worry about flooding, because as the whole atmosphere gets warmer, it can hold much more water than all the ice of Earth contains. A hurricane demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be held in only a very small fraction of the atmosphere if the temperature is elevated.
But you who took a junior high school physics course forgot that warm air can hold HUGE quantities of water. All and more of the water from the ice would be suspended in a warm atmosphere. The whole Earth once was a VERY warm place and it would be nice actually if it were warm again, as long as the change takes place slowly. There are tropical fossils in the arctic!
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.
Slashdot Mirror
...not in the interest of most Americans...
Apparently the largest majority ever thinks that Bush's way of running things IS in their interest, whether you foreigners like that or not.
In running a business I'd prefer honesty, integrity, truthfulness, faithfulness and other moral qualities FAR above *any* of the other qualifications a potential employee might have or need to possess to do a given job. In running the "business" of a great country like the USA, these moral qualities are the foundation of good leadership.
The founders of this nation and presidents like Abraham Lincoln valued integrity more highly than anything else and were willing to make great personal sacrifices to do the right thing. Maybe moral values don't count much where you are, but this election shows that most Americans still value moral integrity above economics.
...critical thinking skills of the voters themselves need "fixing"...
Stop insulting the majority of thinking Americans!!
I think your thinking skills need fixing rather than the millions of Americans who voted for Bush, the candidate with a consistent position rather than Kerry who was flip-flopping every time he opened his mouth.
....earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet....
I think the American people ought to be congratulated for doing just that, rather than dancing to the tunes of those who hate us enough to crash airplanes into our buildings. One reason they hate Bush so much is that he, unlike his predecessor is finally standing up to them and those that symphathize with them.
....until the economy totally collapses...
/.ers are probably too young or were not even here yet to remember the shock that went through the US when the popular John Kennedy was cut down by an assassin's bullet. I myself was young then, but will never forget that day. Freedom has always been costly in terms of lives and money and it seems that the younger generation is less willing to pay the price.
Worry about the economy was not much of a consideration of previous generations of Americans who were more concerned about freedom -- of themselves and others. Starting with the brave men of the revolutionary war, all through our history, freedom was the greater concern than mere money. In WW1 and World War 2, this country fought for freedom at a much greater cost than Iraq. Getting rid of Hitler and the Japanese miltary machine was very expensive in terms of money and especially in American lives and very few Americans complained, but they knew it was their duty to rid the world of a dangerous tyrant and an enemy that treacherously attacked Pearl Harbor. It was not the Republicans that were in power then. Now, when the hour has come to get rid of an enemy that treacherously attacked in NY and Washingto DC, many are balking at the cost.
I cannot understand that the democratic party could not find a better candidate for president than Kerry. There have been some GREAT presidents who were democrats, such as Roosevelt and Kennedy. Most
...ordering pizza by phone becomes illegal...
That will only happen if you continue to vote for legislators that would make such laws. Ultimately the voters can throw such out of office. We'll have to make sure that only persons that like to order pizza by phone get into office in the future.
Indeed, if the CIA, KGB, FBI, NSA, Gestapo etc. would do those things to me, they'd likely fall asleep of boredom and would likely miss finding REAL terrorists.
...popular is a property that may make a system safer...
Who cares WHY the Mac is safer, the fact is that it is safer and the reason doesn't really matter. If the time ever comes where Macs get somwhere as numerous as Windows boxes, (not likely at this point) more attempts to break into them may occur, but even right now, if the every Windows box magically turned into a Mac the number of malware infections would be WAY less because Macs have better security. This security is especially good against unassisted break-ins that occur into Windows boxes just because they are connected to the Internet, even in some cases for only a few minutes. No OS can ever be totally secure against social engineering that persuades authorized users to install unknown software.
...what is a breach?...
I would call a breach the installation and execution of any software that the user/owner of the machine did not install of his/her own initiative or that did not come with the machine to begin with. A cleverly social engineered trojan/spyware/adware that tricks a user into installing and running it is still far different than some malware that can install itself and execute on a system just because that system is connected to the Internet. Any system, including Macs, can be compromised if the user/owner of the system can be persuaded to install some unknown programs.
...talking about servers...
They were also talking about desktop users in small businesses and homes with a fast, always on Internet connection. Out of the box, Macs come with most network software turned off, which makes them less vulnerable. Still, a well social engineered trojan can infect any system, if the user can be tricked into running the malware and giving or having the needed admin privileges to allow installation. No Mac is vulnerable to any of the self installing malware programs that will destroy or zombiefy a Windows box, sometimes in minutes after being connected to the Internet. I don't think it is possible to write a self-infecting malware for a Mac that doesn't require user interaction.
...if they had more users...
This is an old saw that is repeated endlessly. So what how many users OSX has, I can do my computing MUCH more safely than with Windows, and now according to this article, even Linux. The Linux stats surprised me. Who cares WHY my house doesn't get broken into. Is it because I live in a low crime area, have strong locks or nobody likes the things I have? The bottom line is that I sleep better at night not having to worry about getting broken into and getting ripped off.
It so happens that OSX DOES have better locks and is perceived by the cybercrooks as not being worth the trouble to get into, compared to all the unlocked Windows houses in the city. The crooks go from door to door and easily find the unlocked Windows houses, but all the doors on the Mac houses are locked and have to be forced upen. Criminals, cyber or otherwise try the easiest methods, because if they have to work hard, they might as well get an honest job.
...religion's all-powerful god...
Isn't it curious that very culture has some kind of religion? Man it seems is incurably religious. Why is it that many object to the possibility of an all powerful God? Is it not the thought that if there truly is such a God that a person might be accountable to Him for their behaviour?
If a person lives their life in a loving and good way to please God and then it turns out there is no God and no Heaven and no Hell, what has such a person lost? On the other hand if a person lives a selfish and unfruitful life with no regard to God and it turns out He is there after all, along with a heaven and a hell to which the sinner is now consigned forever, what is the better risk in how to live?
Either give up some short lived sinful pleasures in this life and live an upright life in relation to God or live as you please without regard to God and lose for eternity. Which odds are you taking?
...that's what DNA is - information...
You are not quite correct there. DNA is the CARRIER of information in the same sense that a floppy disk is the carrier of digital information. The disk is a carrier of binary information and the DNA carries a four level code. The information itself is distinct from the carrier and as such is not subject to some of the laws of physics. Information can be transmitted by a truck or a radio wave. If you accurately weigh a floppy, it will weigh exactly the same, whether it is erased or loaded with information, because information has no mass. Information itself cannot be corrupted or lost, only the carrier thereof can lose or garble it.
The question for evolutionists: Where did the incredible amounts of information come from that is stored in code on the DNA of humans and other living creatures.
Creationists belive this information came from a MIND commonly called GOD.
...evolution is a process,...
Even if that were true, any process, chemical, physical or biological requires the input of information which guides the process. Information cannot arise spontaneously and randomly, but requires a higher source of information. Matter + energy + INFORMATION = life. If the information is left out, there can be no life.
Computers cannot program themselves, but need a programmer and the programs arise in the programmers MIND.
Creationists believe that a great MIND is behind everything, things that are perceivable as well as things that are imperceptible. If there is evolution, it is certainly guided by an incredible mind. Many attach the label GOD to this mind.
Random evolution has some fundamental problems. Here is one:
I have disk drive which contains all the information on how to build a disk drive, but how did the first disk drive get made if the information how to make one must be recorded on a disk drive first? The first disk drive must be fully functional at the outset in order to hold the instructions needed to build disk drives.
The life equivalent of a disk drive is DNA which carries the information for a given living organism. Just taking matter plus energy does not make life. It takes another ingredient: information. Information can only arise from another source of higher information. The DNA carries the instructions how to make proteins among other things, but DNA itself is made from proteins. So what came first, the DNA or the proteins which make up the DNA which carries the information of how to make proteins, including the many very complex proteins that make up the rods and cones of our eyes.
It is the microbiology equivalent of the chicken and egg problem. Somehow, somewwhere an intelligence must provide the information, then make DNA and then record the information on it so it can then make other proteins, including other DNA.
In my disk drive analogy, someone with enough skill to do so who also has the information on how to build a disk drive, must first make one and store the information how to make it thereon. After that the information is available to make more disk drives as well as other information can be stored to build a whole computer or an automobile. The information storage device must be built first and then all kinds of information can be put thereon for building other things.
...warmer climate caused the lowering ....
This extension of the river beds onto and beyond the continental shelf also happened in areas that would have been frozen solid during the last ice age. There is also plenty of fossil and other evidence that the arctic areas of Earth were once tropical. Some of the living creatures in Siberia were entombed quickly by some cataclysm. They are preserved in their entirety like in a giant freezer. No slow process that we know about can preserve living matter so scientists can study these creatures from long ago. There are also numerous dinosaur remains found in the now frozen regions.
...To be frank I don't believe it....
I have a big Atlas of the world put out by National Geographic which shows the known topography of the world's oceans. There is an under sea structure labelled the "Amazon Cone" which shows the continuation of the river bed outward far beyond the continental shelf. Other major rivers also have this under sea structure shown, such as the Mississippi and rivers on the west coast of Africa. The Nile river bed is also depicted on such a map extending far into the present Mediteranean. The Atlas was published back in 1975 and has no ISBN number listed. I have also seen some of these fascinating maps in the magazine some time ago. I'm sure that if you really want to check this out, and are willing to take the time to do so you can find such a map.
As far as warming, I am talking about the ultimate endpoint, where all the carbon that was once in the air is put there again to the extent that the air would be about 10% CO2. I doubt that this will happen because a lot of the buried carbon is unknown or inaccessible to man and will likely remain so for a long time.
As the greenhouse effect becomes greater, the climate will definitely get warmer and will have major effects on all inhabitants of spaceship earth. Some of these will be beneficial for some and some detrimental, but the amazing adaptability of living things will continue to cope with the changes of the future, just as they have in the past. In think that for most living creatures a warmer planet will be a positive thing. We are very transient residents of this world and the effects I am talking about would take place over many generations.
...most of the atmosphere is undersaturated...
In the tropical areas of the world the saturation is generally quite high. At one time the whole Earth was much like the tropics of the Amazon and other warm wet places in the equatorial areas. The river bed of the Amazon continues on the present continental shelf of South America out for almost 200 miles. All of that is under water now, but at one time, the river flowed there. This is because the so much of the water was in the warm atmosphere and above it.
Water vapor is lighter than air; that is why clouds float upwards. When the air cools the it becomes supersaturated. Condensation takes place if there are particles around which drops can form, which eventually get too heavy and fall as rain. As the air gets warmer the upper atmosphere also gets warmer and so condensation level is much higher up where there is little or no dust to condense raindrops on. This means the upper atmosphere could be a layer of almost pure supersaturated water vapor. There is very little water in the upper atmosphere today, because the condensation level is low enough where there are plenty of particles around which raindrops can form and therefore the water continually precipitates out.
All geologic processes take a long time and extrapolating from our miniscule observation time perspective is an uncertain business.
...we're not semi-aquatic alligators....
There are a lot of ordinary humans living in the tropics today, not just alligators. It is no accident that most warm blooded creatures have an internal temperature in the range of 95 to 105 deg F (35-40.5 deg C) because this is the range where life molecular processes operate at optimum. If the entire Earth gets to near that temperature, most species will not only survive, but thrive, including the likes of you!
I suspect however that mankind will not be able to find much of the fossil fuel that is buried in unknown or unaccessible spots and so the temperature is not likely to get that high. Also, as life proliferates because of the warmth, more carbon gets stored in the living matter and eventually there will be an equilibrium. As to the timeframe of all of this, nobody really knows, but it is happening very slowly now and will take a long time in human terms, like most geologic processes do.
There are fossils imbedded coal and remnants of living cells in oil, showing that these fuels were made by living processes.
If we burned all the fuel, the carbon content of the air might increase from the present 2% or so to perhaps 10%, but the amount of water vapor in the air would go up much more as the temperature increases. A hurricane demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be held in only a very small fraction of the atmosphere if the temperature is elevated. As the temperature rises over time, life forms become more prolific and the increased growth on land and the sea would accelerate the removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Eventually things would reach some equilibrium.
Venus has a lot of methane in its atmosphere and is too close to the sun, so you would not want to go there.
...vapor the atmosphere holds...
The water held in the air is not available to flood anything. A warm humid atmosphere would make the temperature difference between the poles and the equator very small. There are TROPICAL fossils and fossil fuels in the arctic. How did they get there?
These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt over the many generations that such changes happen.
There are millons of humans enjoying life today in the tropical regions of the Earth. So what if the whole Earth once again becomes tropical. It would not happen suddenly so the succeeding generations of humans would get used to it and think of it as "normal" just as we consider today's climate normal.
There are well established formulas for calculating the water holding capacity if a given air mass at any temperature. A hurricane is a demonstration of the awesome water holding capability of a very small fraction of the Earth's atmosphere.
...to realize the potential harm...
You and these scaremongers are assuming that warming is harmful. It is actually beneficial. There are tropical fossils in the arctic as well as fossil fuels such as oil and coal. These came from thriving living organisms that once lived in those areas. The carbon in all fuels was once in the atmosphere and now we are putting a small amount back. These changes take a long time and living things are very adaptable. We will also adapt.
There is no reason to worry about flooding, because as the whole atmosphere gets warmer, it can hold much more water than all the ice of Earth contains. A hurricane demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be held in only a very small fraction of the atmosphere if the temperature is elevated.
...So sea level rises....
But you who took a junior high school physics course forgot that warm air can hold HUGE quantities of water. All and more of the water from the ice would be suspended in a warm atmosphere. The whole Earth once was a VERY warm place and it would be nice actually if it were warm again, as long as the change takes place slowly. There are tropical fossils in the arctic!
....land under water.....
The dire predictions about coastal flooding would not happen because the moisture holding capacity of the warm, carbon dioxide laden atmosphere would increase to more than offset the molten ice. The amount of water a hurricane can dump demonstrates the huge quantities of water that can be suspended in warm air.