Wondering how you would like to address this for our state where crops are being lost en masse and we're pulling out every stop we can to try to keep the salmon and trout populations up (which, by the way, is going to lead to heavy litigation right around the corner as water rights are being violated in order to do this). You sit here and act like "t never came and it's not even close." Uhhhhh the evidence of it is taking place in our state, chief, as well as the entire west coast, if you would bother to pay attention. Sure.
Maybe just maybe after Miami turns into Atlantis, will we possibly acknowledge that it might be a problem. Until then, fuck you libtards.
Hello Alex. The crazy thing about Americans and global warming is we can stop producing all CO2 or w/e, but until China and India do too, it's not gonna make a bit of difference. I also get a good laugh at the do as I say, not as I do liberals - like Al Gore telling us to take a bike and shit, and this dude is flying around on a private jet and taking limos when he lands. I get it. I would do all that too, but I wouldn't be a hypocrite about it.
Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister The threat of climate change needs to be assessed in the same comprehensive way as nuclear weapons proliferation, according to a UK foreign minister. Baroness Joyce Anelay, minister of state at the Commonwealth and Foreign Office, said the indirect impacts of global warming, such as deteriorating international security, could be far greater than the direct effects, such as flooding. She issued the warning in a foreword to a new report on the risks of climate change led by the UK’s climate change envoy, Prof Sir David King. The report, commissioned by the Foreign Office, and written by experts from the UK, US, China and India, is stark in its assessment of the wide-ranging dangers posed by unchecked global warming, including: very large risks to global food security, including a tripling of food prices unprecedented migration overwhelming international assistance increased risk of terrorism as states fail lethal heat even for people resting in shade The world’s nations are preparing for a crunch UN summit in Paris in December, at which they must agree a deal to combat climate change. Monday’s report states that existing plans to curb carbon emissions would heighten the chances of the climate passing tipping points “beyond which the inconvenient may become intolerable”. In 2004, King, then the government’s chief scientific adviser, warned that climate change is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. “Assessing the risk around [nuclear weapon proliferation] depends on understanding inter-dependent elements, including: what the science tells us is possible; what our political analysis tells us a country may intend; and what the systemic factors are, such as regional power dynamics,” said Anelay. “The risk of climate change demands a similarly holistic assessment.” Advertisement The report sets out the direct risks of climate change. “Humans have limited tolerance for heat stress,” it states. “In the current climate, safe climatic conditions for work are already exceeded frequently for short periods in hot countries, and heatwaves already cause fatalities. In future, climatic conditions could exceed potentially lethal limits of heat stress even for individuals resting in the shade.” It notes that “the number of people exposed to extreme water shortage is projected to double, globally, by mid century due to population growth alone. Climate change could increase the risk in some regions. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-threat-serious-as-nuclear-war-uk-minister
When it gets extremely warm and people have no access to air conditioning and limited water. Ie in India 1700 people died this year in a heat wave.... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-32926172
That's not untrue, but this is such a cop out. How about we do all we can to focus on finding cheap and clean forms of energy that can be implemented in other countries once we've started utilizing them? We like to envision ourselves as world leaders, so let's fucking lead.
He's not the only one pushing that narrative though. That's a big talking point by conservatives who admit climate change is real but don't think we can do shit about it.
Dick Cheney re invading Iraq: "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction — and there has been a small probability of such an occurrence for some time — the United States must now act as if it were a certainty." Why does the same logic not apply to climate change? If there's even a 1% chance that we'll experience significant damage to our country from changing precipitation and temperature patterns and sea level rise, why not act to mitigate the risk? Especially because it's not a fruitless pursuit - even if nothing happens and all of the scientists are wrong, we advance renewable technologies, fuck Russia, the Middle East, and Venezuela from reduced dependence on oil, and improve air quality. Not to mention the huge cost savings for corporations that firms like DuPont and Walmart have already experienced by moving to a more sustainable model. An enormous amount of energy is wasted due to inefficiencies - taking actions that save money also reduce GHG emissions. I don't give a shit about polar bears or beach resorts in the Maldives, but I do care about national security and the economy. The liberals have really fucked up imo by framing this as a moral and environmental issue rather than an economic, energy, and national security issue. Advance renewable technologies and public policy for the purpose of creating jobs, disarming enemies, and reducing waste.
China leads the world in renewable energy investment. India has made huge investments under Modi and all signs point to continued renewable development. It's way easier to have distributed generation with micro wind and solar installments in a developing nation than it is to try to establish a power grid.
uhh I mean it is an environmental issue. Maybe planetary issue would be a better term. It's not like we can launch 10 billion people on over to Mars if we fuck up the Earth in 100 years. This is the only planet we have (at least for the very near future).
it is both but the other side could more easily get behind what Big Apple stated. sometimes it is all about how you package your message
And we have politicians trying to defund NASA's earth science ventures. smdh Which is why I don't give a shit about people's personal habits when it comes to their carbon footprint. It's irrelevant. Policies actually matter.
This is a step in the right direction, but the article is written with a lot of skepticism towards China effectively fulfilling their end of the deal.
Agree, but the current narrative has resulted in the issue becoming way more politicized than it should. There are so many common interests here but the liberal narrative has focused on one of the few elements that sparks huge disagreement.
I will agree with you on that having Al Gore (who is a highly polarizing figure) champion at the beginning sparked the current trend of Republicans putting their head in the sand but with the information we know now, you cannot blame anyone but the climate change deniers at this point. I mean anyone with a brain recognizes that climate change is a massive national security issue and will become a much larger hit to the taxpayers in the coming future. If people fail to recognize that, it's squarely on them.
I think Dems would get more traction if they stopped sensationalizing and hit us straight. Exaggerated effects only give the opposition fuel to fight back. Stop saying the world is going to end in 5 years and more people might listen.
I don't think anyone is saying that. I think the other side takes a few extremists (who aren't even that extreme) and then exaggerate that and it turns into BS like LA will be totally flooded by 2020
Scientists were saying places like Miami would have flooding problems as the global sea levels rose. I know this will come as a shocker so I hope you are sitting down, but Miami is currently having flooding problems due to global sea levels rising.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Take a look at the interactive map and see what's in store for South Florida, Louisiana, and the Carolinas. My personal favorite, near and dear to me, is what's going to happen to the Bay Area and the Central Valley.
The displacement possibility in east Asia is pretty frightening. If there's a mass exodus from Indonesia and parts of Malaysia because of flooding that's going to cause a shitstorm. Maybe not end of the world type problems, but I can't imagine very many places are going to be prepared to welcome millions or even hundreds of millions of people into their countries.
Why not just try to preserve the earth? Who cares what another political party says? Why do you have to be sold on climate change?
Let's be honest here, those white boys aren't gonna have a problem assimilating into other parts of Europe. You think Australia or India or China is gonna welcome a bunch of Indonesians with open arms? That shit might turn into one of the largest humanitarian crises of all time.
I'm going to let the earth fall apart because I didn't like the way another political party framed the issue. That'll teach 'em.
If that SciAm article I linked is correct, Malaysia won't be affected too horrifically. Vietnam stands to be worse off. Even there, they can relocate in-country, probably with external assistance. It'll be gradual, so it's not like they all need some disaster relief NOW. On the bright side, the Spratlys ought to disappear faster than the Chinese can build them up for use as forward bases in the South China Sea.
Totally. Everyone wants Muslim immigrants, especially poor ones. India will we waiting with open arms.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/27/malaysia-floods-idUSL3N0UB05P20141227 http://climatemigration.org.uk/moving-stories-indonesia/ Probably should have focused on Indonesia instead of Malaysia, but both are pretty susceptible.
I think you're talking more about extreme weather, and I'm talking only about sea level rise. I think you can include Bangladesh in your narrative, too.
Yeah, I was going to chime in and mention that Bangladesh would be fucked. They have a disaster every time it rains for a day or two.
I'm not gonna dig in too much cause I don't feel like I have a good grasp on it, much less what some of you all would think. But when it goes from global cooling to global warming and then "climate change" (along with Al Gore and his propaganda on the subject), people will be skeptical. Plus wasn't there some falsified evidence that came out a few years ago? Then there are the CO2 credit schemes and exchanges, etc, it really does seem shady...And people that are already skeptical of big govt, get more skeptical. Plus aren't we already flying planes shooting nanoparticals in the air? I think it is naive to think we can override mother nature. The Earth is strong.
I don't understand how there is supposed to be continuity between what some research said in the 1970's compared to now. This "they" that keeps getting mentioned. ~50 years ago is like looking back in the dark ages for some scientific fields.
I don't have a fucking clue what you are talking about in the second part, but we are much more powerful than we credit ourselves. If we get to the point where energy is basically free and we can pump desalinated oceanwater inland, we will be able to some amazing things. On the first part, y'all are referencing shit that happened in the 70's and was mainly the media's doing: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm Peer reviewed opinions have been pretty consistent on the issue. CO2 credit "schemes" are basically incentives for large corporations to alter their energy sources for long term benefit of everyone. My father in law works for Kimberly Clark and thinks Climate Change is bullshit. But part of his job is cost cutting measures, and his programs have cut about 200,000 tons/year of CO2 emissions with pretty quick payback times because of tax credits. Basically 80% of the investment was provided by government spending, and it's actually made their energy consumption more efficient. (One of the plants runs off a local crop (sugar cane?) and another utilizes the wood scrap to generate energy) CO2 credits are the most successful aspect of climate change because corporations aren't against it. Hell the government is basically paying for companies' energy costs reductions.