is the major cause will be looked at with ridicule.
There have been many, many periods of SEVERE climate change over the millenia. Glaciers in the midwest! And as another post stated..they grew grapes in England and as far north as Scotland. Those are severe changes.
Take a good look at the panelists on these pro-global warming boards. Most are NOT scientists - instead they are politicians, writers, college professors of non-scientific background.
I'm not a scientist but I am technically trained and I remember the 1972 Newsweek and Time magazine articles cautioning us about the coming Ice Age! Huh?
Since I live in Va. I think I will do well with the climate change barreling down upon me.. I am already acclimated to hot summers and then every winter I have to re adjust to the cold.. It will be nice when there is not such a extreme in the fluctuations.A lot of people need to realize many in the world will benefit from Global warming..Siberia comes to mind.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 5:42:13 PM
No, you wouldn't want Siberian to warm up and melt the permafrost. That would (and is already) releasing large amounts of methane, another potent greenhouse, ie, global warming gas.
The whole debate overlooks that warming periods have been periods of prosperity, while cooling has caused disease and poverty. There was a great documentary on the Discovery Channel about the Little Ice Age. I expected it to be a global warming propoganda piece, but instead it just reported on the effects of NATURAL temperature changes. During the Medeival warm period the Vikings colonized Greenland and Europe's population flourished. Then came the Little Ice Age, and half the population of Europe died.
People forget that the Roman's had vinyards in England -- it's too cold for wine grapes to grow there today.
We have two choices:
1) We can spend $trillions fighting natural global warming, impoverish ourselves and our progeny, and they will still have to adjust to warmer climates, or
2) We can adjust to warmer climates and not impoverish our progeny.
Which should we do? Duh!
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 7:25:10 PM
is the major cause will be looked at with ridicule.
There have been many, many periods of SEVERE climate change over the millenia. Glaciers in the midwest! And as another post stated..they grew grapes in England and as far north as Scotland. Those are severe changes.
Take a good look at the panelists on these pro-global warming boards. Most are NOT scientists - instead they are politicians, writers, college professors of non-scientific background.
I'm not a scientist but I am technically trained and I remember the 1972 Newsweek and Time magazine articles cautioning us about the coming Ice Age! Huh?
and as I said to someone else about the "50 years from now" scenario...
"If there is a hell,
I'll see you there"
Let's face it. All the crap being spouted off now, is bullshit. It doesn't matter because we, the human race, are driving ourselves to another brink. If we do not regain control of our collective sense worldwide, we are bound to destroy ourselves, whether in a bloom of mushroom clouds, or in some gruesome reenactment of Stephen King's The Stand, be nearly wiped out by some man made biological weapon.
Considering the typical acrimony in this forum, and using it as a microcosm of American society, we're fucked. Well, some of YOU are, anyway.
Stop the Madness, Before The Madness Stops You.
Many will lose.
Canada might be a big winner.
I suspect that the US stands to lose.
Zin,
I don't even know what that means.
I understand the concepts of "win" and "loss" when applied to individuals, especially when discussed with regard to something that has one or only a few dimensions.
I don't understand what it means for countries to "win" or "lose".
What does it mean to say the US will "lose" and Canada "win" wrt global warming?
Are you including Americans who export goods to Canada among the losers? Are you including Canadians who export goods to the US among the winners? How about Americans who have many investments in Canada? How about Americans who enjoy the climate changes brought about by global warming and don't have potentially harmed seafront property?
I'm not trying to be dense; I'm encouraging you to use what some call methodological individualism in your analysis. Anthropormophizing countries into winners and losers is often just a mask for sloppy thinking.
First, I think the GDP of the US will probably be wrecked.
I think there will be severe water shortages that will shut down our agriculture and make some cities unsustainable. I think we're going to see many diseases from the tropics. We're probably going to lose New Orleans again, and that time, there will be no rebuilding. We might also lose several other cities. We might actually have a problem with refugees.
That's what I mean by lose. Whereas Canada could use a few more degrees to its temperatures. It will make more land inhabitable and will make many more natural resources accessible. It will make cities like Toronto much more attractive.
Individuals might do very well regardless of nationality. The US as a nation might be cooked. Its government and private debts, its war with Iraq, and crucially, our poor education system, will make recovery almost hopeless.
With these stresses, politically, I could actually envision the US breaking into several rival nations, each with their similar constitutions.
That's what I mean by lose.
The winners will be the ones that ignore teh chicken littles and continue to invest in productive causes.
The losers will be those that waste resources trying to micromanage the climate.
I don't mind if people want to buy bogus carbon offsets wheh they book airtravel (I'm not making this up -- check out Expedia), just don't impose your religion on me and expect me to buy penance, too.
Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" will be viewed in the same comedic vein as is "Reefer Madness".