Thread: Questions about Global Warming...

Assuming it's real, the primary factor is feeding populations. Identifying areas of improved agricultural prospects is paramount, along with treaty negotiations for mass movement of populations with appropriate global-based funding to minimise the impact on the host countries.

Originally Posted by YellowFever

From everything I read (granted it's not as much as I should be reading), it sounds like the "worst case scenario".......isn't that bad.

The worst case scenario can be really bad.

The majority of human population lives along the coast line. Many islands, the habitable parts are just a few feet about sea level. If the oceans rise just a foot, a lot of habitable land today will be under water. We're not going to have Waterworld, but millions will have to move.

What the global warming cult don't tell you is warming actually will open up more land in the higher latitudes to farming. This change will happen over decades, maybe a century or two, at current pace, if the pace holds for a century (which I doubt).

Basically it comes down to this. The global warming cult fears change. They want this planet to freeze (no pun intended) at this moment in time. This is perfect. Where as we non-believers doubt their doom-and-gloom predictions and also we don't mind adapting to a changing world. If the place we live at gets too warm? Move. We don't have to stay here.

Ok...If we are using advocates worst case scenarios then we're all going to die. But before that, the planet will burn and the seas will rise 50 feet. Humans will have resorted to cannibalism for lack of food. There will be mass extinctions on an unprecedented scale. Afterwards, the Earth will resemble Venus.

There's your worst case according to the advocates. I am not making any of them up either.

You could have asked what would we do if the planet is attacked by giant mutant roaches from space, as it's about as likely to happen as anything above. It's why I prefer to follow the science and ignore the advocates.

Wow, your worst case scenario is way worse than my worst case scenario. I have much to learn.

Originally Posted by gunnut

The worst case scenario can be really bad.

The majority of human population lives along the coast line. Many islands, the habitable parts are just a few feet about sea level. If the oceans rise just a foot, a lot of habitable land today will be under water. We're not going to have Waterworld, but millions will have to move.

What the global warming cult don't tell you is warming actually will open up more land in the higher latitudes to farming. This change will happen over decades, maybe a century or two, at current pace, if the pace holds for a century (which I doubt).

Basically it comes down to this. The global warming cult fears change. They want this planet to freeze (no pun intended) at this moment in time. This is perfect. Where as we non-believers doubt their doom-and-gloom predictions and also we don't mind adapting to a changing world. If the place we live at gets too warm? Move. We don't have to stay here.

This is what I mean by it not being "that bad".
The worst case scenario, if it is true, will take decades, if not centuries...no?

These people can be slowly re-located and like you said, the earth heating up a few degrees will actually create better farmlands.

The more I read the more I come to the realization that this is not such a big deal.
Certainly not big enough to invest billions upon billions that we seem to be spending to confront this problem.

I still have the same question for the global warming cult: what is their end goal?

Follow me on this. Notice everything has to do with "limiting carbon." The farce at Kyoto; the cap and trade scam; fuel efficient cars; blah blah blah. Everything is about reducing the so-called CO2 emission.

What is the goal?

There is no goal.

The cult does not have a target set in their sights as in "if we observe the earth to stay at x temperature for a duration of y years, then we have achieved our goal."

The target is "we have to reduce x% emission by 20xx."

It doesn't make sense.

gunnut,

What is the goal?

There is no goal.

The cult does not have a target set in their sights as in "if we observe the earth to stay at x temperature for a duration of y years, then we have achieved our goal."

The target is "we have to reduce x% emission by 20xx."

It doesn't make sense.

i think for them the end goal is stabilizing carbon dioxide at so much ppm. of course, the interesting thing is if this ever does happen and the globe continues to warm up anyway.