Don't kid yourself. With a standing army of 3 million they could protect it if they feel they needed to, not to mention an INCREDIBLY DEEP reserve should the need arise.
Beside, the Chinese only need to negotiate amicably with the Russians to accomplish this. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with geography but their immediate neighbor Russia extends from the Pacific to Europe without interruption. Russia has many problems, but its not as if the rail line needs to pass through Chechnya. The Russians would be delighted to play the middle-man between Europe and China as it would greatly bolster their international standing, not to mention greatly improve their rail system and better unite their east and west coast economies.
Projecting the notion that just because the US is unable to get things done in Central Asia, in the rest of the world, or at home for that matter, doesn't mean that others are simply standing around waiting for us to get our act together. Make no mistake the Chinese are moving so far ahead of the US in high-speed rail technology that its hard to imagine that our debt-ridden nation will ever catch up. When you think that rail is the most efficient means of moving people and material, you would have to be some kind of fool to think that over the long run, this will not translate into relative economic, technological, cultural, military, and environmental advantage.
While republicans and other "don't tax-me citizens" may be able to prove that they can block every kind of progress in the US, that doesn't mean that America isn't paying a price for such obstructionism.
"It would have let Democrats position themselves as pro-economy."
Not really, by letting heath care costs continue to sky-rocket and be ready to do health-insurance companies bidding, republicans can argue that they are more more "pro-economy" because after all health insurance executives control more and more of the US economy ever day.
"The conservatives don't see the government as the body to be providing health care because it does not employ free-market principals"
No they prefer to wait until health care premiums are 95% of their income and 95% of the entire US economy. After that, they will deal with the problem, by eliminating Christianity and all that "love thy neighbor" and "help the poor and the sick" and "allowing the meek to inherit the earth" baloney.
Do away with Jesus and profits will soar!
After all, what good are a bunch of "un-productive" poor aging people to a society that judges its citizens on the basis of how much they own?
Makes one wonder if Jesus does return on judgement day, if will he be so nice to the new "blind man".
because my health care insurance company must spend so much paying a small army to post totally false stories on websites to keep the gullible gullible.
Lets do away with the teachings of Jesus, who called out for help for the poor and sick and recognize that corporations simply can't afford it any more. It cuts into profits.
Down with Christianity. Up with Corporate Profits!
Lets face it the new conservative court has overturned such a non-sensensical reading of the consituttion.
Haven't you heard?
Corporations are people now and the new paramount principle of American jurisprudence is now "One dollar one vote. 1 million dollars one million votes."
"we are terrified of any possible implementation of it by our government".
That's why we've given up on America ever being able to become any better than it is now.
Corporate lobbyists have convinced Americans to distrust one another to the point their government has become disfunctional, except when its acting on behalf of special corporate interests.
After all corporations are now people and we must stand up and defend the constitutional rights of corporations now!
At least I finally figured out what they meant by "New World Order".
The article is quite an interesting look into the arcane details of American jurisprudence or the lack thereof. However, it leaves a question posed unanswered.
In the article the author points out the problems with the use of the "Walls Open Source License" and goes on to state that other GLP licenses would have been a more prudent choice.
Given the twists and turns in argumentation, the question is what others GLP licenses would have been better? There's a lot of nuance and experience here to suggest that certain wording in licenses would have offered the developer and the community better protection. However, its not at all clear what the wording is and under what legal circumstances would different GLP licenses be superior.
Seems like a summary of this following on the heels of this interesting article would be helpful.
Will Texans also be blaming all those damn liberal elitists for the drying that so much of Texas is experiencing?
Given a little more time and a little more global warming and folks in Texas will remember horses in the same way South Africans remember the Quagga not to mention the range cattle.
Mars is not warming. It does, however, undergo seasons. I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia for a brief refresher course on the concept of seasonality and its effects.
Its just that the slow-minded haven't figured that out yet.
That is why there is so little debate among scientists. The debate within the scientific community regards the SPECIFIC consequences of the fact of global warming.
The "debate" you refer to is in the court of public opinion and lets face it the hydrocarbon combustion industry can afford to generate substantial sophism as well as CO2 to make confuse the uneducated into thinking that there is some fundamental unsettled scientific question here. It a lot like the sophism generated by the creationists who try with futility to cast doubt about Darwinian theory. Modern molecular biology and medicine are now based on that theory and no amount of sophism will alter the reality of that.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but it almost certainly confirms that Utahans can expect a lot less of it (water) in the future. Fortunately for Utah politicians, the folks of Utah can go without water.
You seem to overlook the fact that a few comments taken out of context in emails or a few references to poorly reviewed sources about glaciers are hardly enough to alter the consensus that has formed among most scientists about CO2 induced global warming.
There is nothing surprising about politicians scurrying to find excuses for not accomplishing anything that might upset their well-funded contributors. To blame scientists for the inability of politicians to make sensible decisions certainly doesn't provide the politicians with much cover.
If the politicians and and people of Utah want to stand idly by as their state continues to heat up and dry out and they are forced to buy their food elsewhere, I have no objection. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that others should follow in the same path of blind ignorance.
"Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics."
I heard that during the debate this suggested, until someone pointed out that current methods to turn lead into gold have proven extremely difficult and not particularly cost-effective"
Science has never required faith nor does it now or will it in the future. Science is about reasoning and learning how to know.
You are confusing belief that a particular hypotheis may or may not be true and faith. But then, why do I somehow suspect your motive is merely to cast vague aspersions about scientists, so somehow in your mind your sophistry will work to discredit their findings, truths that you find politically or ideologically inconvenient.
He certainly seems eager to hire guys like Glen Beck who are so determined to trash the teachings of Jesus by preaching hate rather than love and replacing Christianity with its compassion for others with good old-fashioned, unadulterated greed.
You obviously don't know much either science, science funding, or peer review.
Scientist make their name by producing research that holds up in the face of the science that follows. There is nothing to benefit a scientist to make an "important discovery" or profound claim, only to have it disproved in the future by someone else. If a business analogy is even apt at all, it is that the most successful scientists are successful because of their track record of producing good science that can not be readily challenged rather than how much grant money they bring in, particularly since little grant money actually goes to the scientist directly. In that sense its more likely to go to the company that sells the equipment or supplies used, travel taken, to the graduate student who gets a modest amount of support for his/her education as part of the process, or the administrator who can then use the included indirect costs, to offset the actual costs of doing the science.
Most peer reviews are anonymous. The reviewers are not known to the author. Most peer review focuses on specific argumentation of method or fact that would be used to reject or suggest improvements that the author must meet to see publican of his or her work. Consequently, the whole concept doesn't lend itself well to the notion that scientists are busy doing this "for the money". Take my word for it, anyone could get a much higher hourly wage doing almost anything else than writing science proposals to get "grants", which typically only partially cover the cost of doing the science. If you want to ignore Jesus and cast stones to castigate someone for milking the system, you might try bankers, media moguls, heath insurance execs or lawyers rather than scientists. The "ore" you might strike is likely to be far, far higher. Scientist by and large a very weak grade of such "ore".
If you can't attack the science, attack the scientist. That's a great solution to the problems facing humanity.
Global Warming is APTLY named as it refers to the rise of GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE and has always been such. Climatologists have long been studying this phenomenon and it is indeed a fact, regardless of how many or how cleverly many might wish to bear false witness.
What you are confused about is that the sophists have chosen to focus on the inconsistencies of the implications of such global mean temperature rise to mask an attack on the underlying scientific theory. Climatologists never intended for their nomenclature to reflect a prediction of the positive or negative nature of the potential consequences of a rise in the mean global temperature.
Such sophism will continue to be used, especially by those industries that rely on hydrocarbon combustion to deny global warming. That is a fact as much as global warming is a fact. Yes, sadly the weak-minded will always be swayed by sophism. Whether a name change depending upon ones propaganda will not materially alter the reality of global warming.
Its going to get hotter folks, especially for those who choose to deny it. Just think how stupid Glen Beck is going to feel in July and August. I betcha Ruppert will be giving him an extended all expenses paid vacation to stay out of town so he doesn't have to answer any pointed questions about the "climate". Either that or we can expect him to wax eloquent on the difference between climate and weather.
There have been two schools of thought with respect to trying to win arguments given conflicting points of view.
One is adopting the approach of gathering the best evidence and using reason to generate a convincing argument. The second is to adopt the approach of using clever rhetorical devices to guile or deceive your audience, whether through appeals to fear, ignorance, disbelief, creating strawmen, etc. into believing your conclusions without the need for rationality or the truth. Science relies at least predominantly on the former, whereas lobbyists, propagandists, idealogues, lawyers, salesmen, etc, rely on the effectiveness of the later.
One can look at the track record of both approaches, the scientific vs. the sophistic and ask yourself. Which approach has provided the most dividends?
Your post, "So, a radical increase in factor x proves instability, and a radical decrease in factor x proves instability. Given that any radical change in factor x proves instability, what would disprove instability?" is an excellent demonstration of the sophistic form of argumentation. It doesn't work because you haven't assigned a values to either "x", or "instability", or "radical decrease", "radical change in factor x", nor is it even clear that from one second to the next, your notion of what these values might be are even the same or comparable, other than being called "x".
Unfortunately, such an argument, if you can even call it that, has little bearing on the reality of CO2 driven climate change and what humanity needs to do to alter what is otherwise about to become a very nasty period in human history.
Sophism is no defense for bearing false witness, nor is it a defense for weak arguments.
The fact is that even if those few data points the deniers are pointing to were thrown out, it would would not alter the fundamental realization that the mean temperature of the earth is rising dramatically and that this is going to have significant impacts on humanity, most adverse.
The deniers can bear all the false witness they want, but the underlying reality of the correctness of the CO2 Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming will remain true nonetheless.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change?
First let us clear up an inaccuraciy in your post. Not of of N. America was under an ice sheet and such ice sheets were relatively speaking a relatively brief event, when considering the entire span of geologic time.
The reason that we should be seriously, I would say extremely concerned is the RATE at which the change (GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE RISE) is occurring and its cause.
First, I find the evidence that CO2 is the driving force for current climate change simply overwhelming, especially when you consider that there is no credible evidence yet presented that could suggest that there is an alternative driving mechanism. It certainly is not changes in solar radiative output, even when taking into account known cyclical aspects of solar radiative output.
Second, it is clear that anthropomorphic production of CO2 greatly exceeds that produced by geological activity (volcanoes, guysers, fumaroles, etc) and this production has greatly accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
Now, look at the rates. The rapidity at which the change in global mean temperatures that is presently changing at least 20 times faster than seen at ANY time in the past. 20 times is the most conservative possible estimate of rate, it may actually be closer to 2 orders of magnitude.
If you know anything at all about biology and the concept of physiological tolerances then you should be extremely concerned about the magnitude of the rate change. Most species are likely to be driven to extinction rather than survive such changes once they encompass too much change too quickly. Of most obvious concern are the loss of those species upon which human economies and food sources depend. There is increasing evidence, for example, that in conjunction with overfishing and dam construction, warming sea temperatures have begun to dramatically impact salmon populations on the West coast, which could end this multibillion dollar industry within a few decades.
In some cases species can migrate to mitigate some of the effects, but this too has significant costly consequences for humanity. The northward migration of pine bark beetles in North America and the poleward spread of otherwise tropical diseases such as malaria and numerous mosquito borne viruses are good examples. Other changes such as increases in ocean acidification may be much more subtle, but likely to produce dramatic irreparable change with profound consequences to oceanic ecosystems.
In most other cases, the effects will be large but difficult to predict, such as is happening as the interiors of continents dry and glaciers melt and melt water becomes more scarce. If this change happens too quickly, as all indications now suggest that it will, hundreds of millions will die as crops don't get irrigated and species people rely upon for food and shelter disappear.
Yes, in the distant geological past there have been great changes, but most of these occurred over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yes, in the future the earth will be vaporized as the sun expands. However, these changes are in the very distant past and the very distant future, well beyond our influence one way or the other. In contrast, the changes we are witnessing now as a result of CO2 induced global warming will be different because they will occur over a few hundred years and the dislocation will be more than many parts of the ecosystem that support human life on this planet will be able to tolerate. Losses of fishes that we rely on for protein of forests for shelter, or crops for food may prove more than a significant proportion of humans can tolerate. This was the primary factor that lead the Pentagon to conclude that climate change would likely become a serious threat to national security.
Clearly, it is the rate of the change that we must be concerned about, especially because most ecosystem changes that occur as a result of global warming will be added to, perhaps
Slashdot Mirror
Given China's attitude toward religion, perhaps that explains their exceptional progress in high-speed rail development.
Don't kid yourself. With a standing army of 3 million they could protect it if they feel they needed to, not to mention an INCREDIBLY DEEP reserve should the need arise.
Beside, the Chinese only need to negotiate amicably with the Russians to accomplish this. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with geography but their immediate neighbor Russia extends from the Pacific to Europe without interruption. Russia has many problems, but its not as if the rail line needs to pass through Chechnya. The Russians would be delighted to play the middle-man between Europe and China as it would greatly bolster their international standing, not to mention greatly improve their rail system and better unite their east and west coast economies.
Projecting the notion that just because the US is unable to get things done in Central Asia, in the rest of the world, or at home for that matter, doesn't mean that others are simply standing around waiting for us to get our act together. Make no mistake the Chinese are moving so far ahead of the US in high-speed rail technology that its hard to imagine that our debt-ridden nation will ever catch up. When you think that rail is the most efficient means of moving people and material, you would have to be some kind of fool to think that over the long run, this will not translate into relative economic, technological, cultural, military, and environmental advantage.
While republicans and other "don't tax-me citizens" may be able to prove that they can block every kind of progress in the US, that doesn't mean that America isn't paying a price for such obstructionism.
"It would have let Democrats position themselves as pro-economy."
Not really, by letting heath care costs continue to sky-rocket and be ready to do health-insurance companies bidding, republicans can argue that they are more more "pro-economy" because after all health insurance executives control more and more of the US economy ever day.
"The conservatives don't see the government as the body to be providing health care because it does not employ free-market principals"
No they prefer to wait until health care premiums are 95% of their income and 95% of the entire US economy. After that, they will deal with the problem, by eliminating Christianity and all that "love thy neighbor" and "help the poor and the sick" and "allowing the meek to inherit the earth" baloney.
Do away with Jesus and profits will soar!
After all, what good are a bunch of "un-productive" poor aging people to a society that judges its citizens on the basis of how much they own?
Makes one wonder if Jesus does return on judgement day, if will he be so nice to the new "blind man".
because my health care insurance company must spend so much paying a small army to post totally false stories on websites to keep the gullible gullible.
Lets do away with the teachings of Jesus, who called out for help for the poor and sick and recognize that corporations simply can't afford it any more. It cuts into profits.
Down with Christianity. Up with Corporate Profits!
Lets face it the new conservative court has overturned such a non-sensensical reading of the consituttion.
Haven't you heard?
Corporations are people now and the new paramount principle of American jurisprudence is now "One dollar one vote. 1 million dollars one million votes."
"we are terrified of any possible implementation of it by our government".
That's why we've given up on America ever being able to become any better than it is now.
Corporate lobbyists have convinced Americans to distrust one another to the point their government has become disfunctional, except when its acting on behalf of special corporate interests.
After all corporations are now people and we must stand up and defend the constitutional rights of corporations now!
At least I finally figured out what they meant by "New World Order".
The article is quite an interesting look into the arcane details of American jurisprudence or the lack thereof. However, it leaves a question posed unanswered.
In the article the author points out the problems with the use of the "Walls Open Source License" and goes on to state that other GLP licenses would have been a more prudent choice.
Given the twists and turns in argumentation, the question is what others GLP licenses would have been better? There's a lot of nuance and experience here to suggest that certain wording in licenses would have offered the developer and the community better protection. However, its not at all clear what the wording is and under what legal circumstances would different GLP licenses be superior.
Seems like a summary of this following on the heels of this interesting article would be helpful.
Won't work. Barrels rust and microorganism and food chains rapidly spread the waste into shallower depths. Your backyard would be preferable.
Will Texans also be blaming all those damn liberal elitists for the drying that so much of Texas is experiencing?
Given a little more time and a little more global warming and folks in Texas will remember horses in the same way South Africans remember the Quagga not to mention the range cattle.
Mars is not warming. It does, however, undergo seasons. I suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia for a brief refresher course on the concept of seasonality and its effects.
Climate change has been proved conclusively.
Its just that the slow-minded haven't figured that out yet.
That is why there is so little debate among scientists. The debate within the scientific community regards the SPECIFIC consequences of the fact of global warming.
The "debate" you refer to is in the court of public opinion and lets face it the hydrocarbon combustion industry can afford to generate substantial sophism as well as CO2 to make confuse the uneducated into thinking that there is some fundamental unsettled scientific question here. It a lot like the sophism generated by the creationists who try with futility to cast doubt about Darwinian theory. Modern molecular biology and medicine are now based on that theory and no amount of sophism will alter the reality of that.
Perhaps, perhaps not, but it almost certainly confirms that Utahans can expect a lot less of it (water) in the future. Fortunately for Utah politicians, the folks of Utah can go without water.
You seem to overlook the fact that a few comments taken out of context in emails or a few references to poorly reviewed sources about glaciers are hardly enough to alter the consensus that has formed among most scientists about CO2 induced global warming.
There is nothing surprising about politicians scurrying to find excuses for not accomplishing anything that might upset their well-funded contributors. To blame scientists for the inability of politicians to make sensible decisions certainly doesn't provide the politicians with much cover.
If the politicians and and people of Utah want to stand idly by as their state continues to heat up and dry out and they are forced to buy their food elsewhere, I have no objection. However, it is ludicrous to suggest that others should follow in the same path of blind ignorance.
"Perhaps they could go ahead and legislate some scientific thinking into themselves while they're redefining physics."
I heard that during the debate this suggested, until someone pointed out that current methods to turn lead into gold have proven extremely difficult and not particularly cost-effective"
Backbone for what, a declaration of intentional ignorance?
Perhaps if you spent more time studying science, you might not feel so threatened.
Just out of curiosity, without science how might you go about deciding for yourself what is true or untrue?
Science has never required faith nor does it now or will it in the future. Science is about reasoning and learning how to know.
You are confusing belief that a particular hypotheis may or may not be true and faith. But then, why do I somehow suspect your motive is merely to cast vague aspersions about scientists, so somehow in your mind your sophistry will work to discredit their findings, truths that you find politically or ideologically inconvenient.
What is it with you that compels you to bear false witness? Are you being paid for it?
Who is the All-Powerful Atheismo?
Would that be Ruppert Murdoch?
He certainly seems eager to hire guys like Glen Beck who are so determined to trash the teachings of Jesus by preaching hate rather than love and replacing Christianity with its compassion for others with good old-fashioned, unadulterated greed.
You obviously don't know much either science, science funding, or peer review.
Scientist make their name by producing research that holds up in the face of the science that follows. There is nothing to benefit a scientist to make an "important discovery" or profound claim, only to have it disproved in the future by someone else. If a business analogy is even apt at all, it is that the most successful scientists are successful because of their track record of producing good science that can not be readily challenged rather than how much grant money they bring in, particularly since little grant money actually goes to the scientist directly. In that sense its more likely to go to the company that sells the equipment or supplies used, travel taken, to the graduate student who gets a modest amount of support for his/her education as part of the process, or the administrator who can then use the included indirect costs, to offset the actual costs of doing the science.
Most peer reviews are anonymous. The reviewers are not known to the author. Most peer review focuses on specific argumentation of method or fact that would be used to reject or suggest improvements that the author must meet to see publican of his or her work. Consequently, the whole concept doesn't lend itself well to the notion that scientists are busy doing this "for the money". Take my word for it, anyone could get a much higher hourly wage doing almost anything else than writing science proposals to get "grants", which typically only partially cover the cost of doing the science. If you want to ignore Jesus and cast stones to castigate someone for milking the system, you might try bankers, media moguls, heath insurance execs or lawyers rather than scientists. The "ore" you might strike is likely to be far, far higher. Scientist by and large a very weak grade of such "ore".
If you can't attack the science, attack the scientist. That's a great solution to the problems facing humanity.
Global Warming is APTLY named as it refers to the rise of GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE and has always been such. Climatologists have long been studying this phenomenon and it is indeed a fact, regardless of how many or how cleverly many might wish to bear false witness.
What you are confused about is that the sophists have chosen to focus on the inconsistencies of the implications of such global mean temperature rise to mask an attack on the underlying scientific theory. Climatologists never intended for their nomenclature to reflect a prediction of the positive or negative nature of the potential consequences of a rise in the mean global temperature.
Such sophism will continue to be used, especially by those industries that rely on hydrocarbon combustion to deny global warming. That is a fact as much as global warming is a fact. Yes, sadly the weak-minded will always be swayed by sophism. Whether a name change depending upon ones propaganda will not materially alter the reality of global warming.
Its going to get hotter folks, especially for those who choose to deny it. Just think how stupid Glen Beck is going to feel in July and August. I betcha Ruppert will be giving him an extended all expenses paid vacation to stay out of town so he doesn't have to answer any pointed questions about the "climate". Either that or we can expect him to wax eloquent on the difference between climate and weather.
There have been two schools of thought with respect to trying to win arguments given conflicting points of view.
One is adopting the approach of gathering the best evidence and using reason to generate a convincing argument. The second is to adopt the approach of using clever rhetorical devices to guile or deceive your audience, whether through appeals to fear, ignorance, disbelief, creating strawmen, etc. into believing your conclusions without the need for rationality or the truth. Science relies at least predominantly on the former, whereas lobbyists, propagandists, idealogues, lawyers, salesmen, etc, rely on the effectiveness of the later.
One can look at the track record of both approaches, the scientific vs. the sophistic and ask yourself. Which approach has provided the most dividends?
Your post, "So, a radical increase in factor x proves instability, and a radical decrease in factor x proves instability. Given that any radical change in factor x proves instability, what would disprove instability?" is an excellent demonstration of the sophistic form of argumentation. It doesn't work because you haven't assigned a values to either "x", or "instability", or "radical decrease", "radical change in factor x", nor is it even clear that from one second to the next, your notion of what these values might be are even the same or comparable, other than being called "x".
Unfortunately, such an argument, if you can even call it that, has little bearing on the reality of CO2 driven climate change and what humanity needs to do to alter what is otherwise about to become a very nasty period in human history.
Sophism is no defense for bearing false witness, nor is it a defense for weak arguments.
The fact is that even if those few data points the deniers are pointing to were thrown out, it would would not alter the fundamental realization that the mean temperature of the earth is rising dramatically and that this is going to have significant impacts on humanity, most adverse.
The deniers can bear all the false witness they want, but the underlying reality of the correctness of the CO2 Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming will remain true nonetheless.
So why are we trying to implement policies to combat that change?
First let us clear up an inaccuraciy in your post. Not of of N. America was under an ice sheet and such ice sheets were relatively speaking a relatively brief event, when considering the entire span of geologic time.
The reason that we should be seriously, I would say extremely concerned is the RATE at which the change (GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE RISE) is occurring and its cause.
First, I find the evidence that CO2 is the driving force for current climate change simply overwhelming, especially when you consider that there is no credible evidence yet presented that could suggest that there is an alternative driving mechanism. It certainly is not changes in solar radiative output, even when taking into account known cyclical aspects of solar radiative output.
Second, it is clear that anthropomorphic production of CO2 greatly exceeds that produced by geological activity (volcanoes, guysers, fumaroles, etc) and this production has greatly accelerated since the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
Now, look at the rates. The rapidity at which the change in global mean temperatures that is presently changing at least 20 times faster than seen at ANY time in the past. 20 times is the most conservative possible estimate of rate, it may actually be closer to 2 orders of magnitude.
If you know anything at all about biology and the concept of physiological tolerances then you should be extremely concerned about the magnitude of the rate change. Most species are likely to be driven to extinction rather than survive such changes once they encompass too much change too quickly. Of most obvious concern are the loss of those species upon which human economies and food sources depend. There is increasing evidence, for example, that in conjunction with overfishing and dam construction, warming sea temperatures have begun to dramatically impact salmon populations on the West coast, which could end this multibillion dollar industry within a few decades.
In some cases species can migrate to mitigate some of the effects, but this too has significant costly consequences for humanity. The northward migration of pine bark beetles in North America and the poleward spread of otherwise tropical diseases such as malaria and numerous mosquito borne viruses are good examples. Other changes such as increases in ocean acidification may be much more subtle, but likely to produce dramatic irreparable change with profound consequences to oceanic ecosystems.
In most other cases, the effects will be large but difficult to predict, such as is happening as the interiors of continents dry and glaciers melt and melt water becomes more scarce. If this change happens too quickly, as all indications now suggest that it will, hundreds of millions will die as crops don't get irrigated and species people rely upon for food and shelter disappear.
Yes, in the distant geological past there have been great changes, but most of these occurred over hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Yes, in the future the earth will be vaporized as the sun expands. However, these changes are in the very distant past and the very distant future, well beyond our influence one way or the other. In contrast, the changes we are witnessing now as a result of CO2 induced global warming will be different because they will occur over a few hundred years and the dislocation will be more than many parts of the ecosystem that support human life on this planet will be able to tolerate. Losses of fishes that we rely on for protein of forests for shelter, or crops for food may prove more than a significant proportion of humans can tolerate. This was the primary factor that lead the Pentagon to conclude that climate change would likely become a serious threat to national security.
Clearly, it is the rate of the change that we must be concerned about, especially because most ecosystem changes that occur as a result of global warming will be added to, perhaps
Until it melts due to increasing temperatures and drains into the sea.