Global Warming to be worse than expected
- Thread starter BCI
- Start date
I know a few folks in the southern hemisphere who might disagree with you on that.
In order to completely stop the threat of global warming... I say that we find a way to prevent the Sun from becoming a red giant, because when that happens... boy howdy... it'll start getting warm up in here. And of course, it'll be the fault of Republicans and somehow, George W. Bush, that the Sun was allowed to become a red giant, to begin with, so obviously, that was also a man-made global warming threat.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I think the best way to survive global warming would be to make it come quicker, the quicker it comes the quicker it's over with. I say we start pumping all the worlds oil wells dry, digging all the worlds coal mines empty and sucking all the world gas pockets clear and start burning that stuff like we've never burnt it before.
We should of course use the abundance of oil, gas and coal and cheapness of it (since we'll be pumping it all out in greater quantity it will become cheaper) and use it to change our economies over to green energy, that way once the oil, gas and coal is gone we can swap over pretty much instantly. Of course by this time we will no doubt be suffering a serious global warming problem but thanks to the cheap oil, gas and coal we'll have built sea defences and technologies to try and clean the atmosphere.
The gem of this idea is the fact that once it's all gone the global warming problem can't become any worse and mother nature will try to repair itself and bring back the balance. We'll just have to wait it out.
We should of course use the abundance of oil, gas and coal and cheapness of it (since we'll be pumping it all out in greater quantity it will become cheaper) and use it to change our economies over to green energy, that way once the oil, gas and coal is gone we can swap over pretty much instantly. Of course by this time we will no doubt be suffering a serious global warming problem but thanks to the cheap oil, gas and coal we'll have built sea defences and technologies to try and clean the atmosphere.
The gem of this idea is the fact that once it's all gone the global warming problem can't become any worse and mother nature will try to repair itself and bring back the balance. We'll just have to wait it out.
The question is, could the human race survive waiting it out?
Checking the politics at the door (and there are some hot-button political ends on this that we're skirting here), we're talking changes to the chemistry of the atmosphere. Are things already changing faster than we can physically adapt? If you've ever been in a big city during a high-pollution day, you have an idea of what I'm talking about. Sure, you'll probably see a population decrease from people who are allergic to the pollutants and people who can't adapt to breathing the different chemicals in the air, but population concentrations are also going to change dramatically. I mean, where are all of the people from the flooded out areas going to go? (If you think places like NYC are going to build sea walls high enough and fast enough to keep lower Manhattan from being underwater, you're an optimist. NYC government moves at roughly the speed of molasses in winter.) And aren't all of these climate refugees going to take their cars with them if they possibly can? What's that going to do to an already overcrowded continent? What does that do to farming? How do we grow enough crops to feed the nation on reduced farmland? There are a lot of considerations to be faced, even in the long-term.
Forcing the change in tech is great in theory, but humans can be dangerously slow to adapt. Mother Nature's idea of "repairing" herself may just be a massive population bottleneck over several generations to curb the damage and allow mankind to truly adapt, if we survive at all.
Checking the politics at the door (and there are some hot-button political ends on this that we're skirting here), we're talking changes to the chemistry of the atmosphere. Are things already changing faster than we can physically adapt? If you've ever been in a big city during a high-pollution day, you have an idea of what I'm talking about. Sure, you'll probably see a population decrease from people who are allergic to the pollutants and people who can't adapt to breathing the different chemicals in the air, but population concentrations are also going to change dramatically. I mean, where are all of the people from the flooded out areas going to go? (If you think places like NYC are going to build sea walls high enough and fast enough to keep lower Manhattan from being underwater, you're an optimist. NYC government moves at roughly the speed of molasses in winter.) And aren't all of these climate refugees going to take their cars with them if they possibly can? What's that going to do to an already overcrowded continent? What does that do to farming? How do we grow enough crops to feed the nation on reduced farmland? There are a lot of considerations to be faced, even in the long-term.
Forcing the change in tech is great in theory, but humans can be dangerously slow to adapt. Mother Nature's idea of "repairing" herself may just be a massive population bottleneck over several generations to curb the damage and allow mankind to truly adapt, if we survive at all.
G
Garrovick
Guest
Just this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in an conference to set the agenda for the next U.N. conference in December are again claiming that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.
The World has heard that claim over and over again.
The Earth will change, and Human life on the Earth will certainly change, but even in the most dire versions of the future, Humans always adapt and survive.
And most people who agree that reduction in the green house gases and other causes of Human intervention in the Earth's environment are required, they are really tired of these "The Sky is Falling by the end of the Century or even the next decade" Zealots.
Where are the predictions and advice of where food should be grown and where people should plan on living in the next 100 to 500 years? Lets cut out the hyperbole, and get on with cleaning the air and the environment, but let's get some real practical useful info out there too.
Groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change need to step off the spot light shining on them media stage and get in the trench's and do some real good for once. Get their hands and boots dirty.
.
The World has heard that claim over and over again.
The Earth will change, and Human life on the Earth will certainly change, but even in the most dire versions of the future, Humans always adapt and survive.
And most people who agree that reduction in the green house gases and other causes of Human intervention in the Earth's environment are required, they are really tired of these "The Sky is Falling by the end of the Century or even the next decade" Zealots.
Where are the predictions and advice of where food should be grown and where people should plan on living in the next 100 to 500 years? Lets cut out the hyperbole, and get on with cleaning the air and the environment, but let's get some real practical useful info out there too.
Groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change need to step off the spot light shining on them media stage and get in the trench's and do some real good for once. Get their hands and boots dirty.
.
That's not what scientists do. That's not their task. It's also very wrong to expect being saved by somebody else. The problem is so big it will need the work of entire generations to adapt to it.
You say humans will survive. What's that supposed to mean? Every ten seconds a child starves to death. Say 30000 every day. How will Global Warming affect this? Erratic weather, massive droughts or floods destroying crops will make this much worse.
Wouldn't it be nice if groups like the IPCC produced handy reports, such as an 850 page volume on strategies for mitigation of climate change. If only there was real practical useful info like that. Too bad those ivory tower scientists are too busy with the doom and gloom, right?
G
Garrovick
Guest
I've seen that before.
All I meant was to stop the head lines about The Sky is Falling" and make the headlines from these groups. "Here is what you need to do"
And have massive wide distributions of the info to the general public. Some thing like the way phone books are distributed in the U.S., or even "junk" mail in the mail box.
So if your quarrel is with the media, why did you criticize the scientists at the IPCC, saying they need to step out of the spotlight and "do some real good for once"? After all, they publish these reports, make them freely available at their website, produce jargon-free summaries intended for policymakers and the general public, and issue press releases to the media.
Well, the chance that over the next decade we will take all of the action - or even most of the action - recommended by the scientists who are most strident about the dangers ahead is precisely zero.
So I guess we'll find out for sure how right or wrong they are.
So I guess we'll find out for sure how right or wrong they are.
God, you people...falling for this Global Scam. It's bullshit. Tell me...what got us out of the last Ice Age? Global Warming did. It's a natural phenomenon. It's got nothing to do with Al Gore's hot air. In fact, the latest data shows global cooling.
This hyper-reaction to the Global Warming theory is a just a tool used by the Left to further control the world's population. And I say Fuck That!!! Global Warming is the new Communism.
EDIT: Whoops, seems that I've reacted to a rather old thread...but still...
Here's what I don't understand is that back in the '70s when the fear was Global Cooling, we were all driving big gas guzzling tanks that got maybe 8 mpg and put out a ton of CO2 emissions burning leaded gas. But now we drive cars that get 20-50 mpg, put out a lot less emissions and yet the fear is Global Warming. It doesn't fucking make sense. Sure there's more cars on the road today, but so what...we're probably still burning a lot less gas and emitting a lot less emissions, so what's changed?
But like I said above, with the demise of the Soviet Union, the Left has to find and use a new mechanism to control the world's population.
But what pisses me off more than anything is the automatic assumption that it's the US that is the main cause of the problem. That's bullshit. Have you people seen the air in China? Seriously...have you seen the air there? Yeah, you can actually see the air there. It's so polluted that you can slice the air with a knife. So what I'm saying is that this problem, if it actually is one, won't be solved unless the "authorities" on the issue hold China to some standards as well. It's not fair just to blame the US. In fact, where the hell is all this dirty air in the US anyway? The air is pretty clean where I live.
Last edited:
Were you around in the '70s?
I was. No one went around "worried about global cooling."
Were you around in the '70s?
I was. No one went around "worried about global cooling."
I do remember science films talking about global cooling and how oil was supposed to be running out in the '90s.
