We're all doomed. Could you pass the grey poupon?
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
You have to take it one step further than Gore... don't you Ted?
I would say the same thing. Too bad our children don't know how big of an idiot he is and might actually believe this crap.
Well, to be fair, food & water shortages are no joke. Wheat & rice are currently strained to the limit, and we've already seen water shortages in the U.S. & around the world.
It is going to be a problem; I don't think cannibalism will be the end result, but it's something that we're definitely going to have to address at some point.
It is going to be a problem; I don't think cannibalism will be the end result, but it's something that we're definitely going to have to address at some point.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Here it is. Presenting mass murder and genocide as enlightenment and progress.
Those problems have always existed despite the average global temps. Linking them to global warming is like blaming God. Most of the water shortages are due to overuse of the resources and not due to anything with the climate. Blaming global warming for everything is getting old.
uscitizen
Villified User
Hey I had those in china, not bad.
Nature will not take it's course like it has in the past. We have too much tech and medicine....
Yeah, it might be getting old, but it's stupid to ignore the influence of it. I don't care if you don't believe in AGW; you don't have to. When the planet warms, we lose farmland, droughts increase, habitats change & some disappear, the oceanic food chain is disrupted, etc. It would be kind of dumb to argue scientifically that a warming planet has no effect on our food or water supply.
Good Luck
New member
Few would argue against global warming, the question is how much (if any) human activity is affecting it. The Earth has been in a general warming trend (AKA perion of interglaciation) for some 16,000 years. Are the activities of humans seriously changing a 600,000 year old cycle? While AGW supporters claim the question has been answered, there are way too many serious scientific questions being ignored in that conclusion.
But human factor or not, it is stupid to ignore the long term effects of a warming Earth, but not for the above suggested reasons. Farmland, in general, is fairly safe. There is little farmland near the coasts compared to inland areas. What we will lose, unless we start preparing soon for a rising sea level, is the coastal cities which include much of the world's manufacturing ability.
Droughts will not increase, they will just change where they are concentrated, as has been happening for the 16,000 years since the Earth started the most recent warming cycle. Conversely, as the Earth continues to warm, to include the oceans, more water will evaporate and join the water cycle. While some areas may experience drought, overall the Earth will see an increase in average precipitation.
Yes, some habitats will change (as happens every warming and cooling cycle) and some critters will not survive to see the next cycle. But as always happens, other critters will take their place.
Where AGW supporters (most of them anyway) fall away from the practical is in suggesting we can actually change the warming of the planet. This is plain ridiculous. No serious geologist, climatologist, or other scientist who studies the way the Earth acts, will deny the fact that the Earth is usually much warmer than it currently is. Noe will deny the fact that there have been many periods in which both polar ice caps have completely disappeared. What puzzles me is why AGW science only focusses on the most recent 600,000 years (out of 4.5 billion years) as a basis of comparison for their climatological models? And why do AGW supporters seem to accept the unstated assumption of AGW that the pre-industrial climate and mean global temperature is the "norm"?
My objection to the whole AGW movement is they focus on stopping human activity that is supposedly contributing to warming, in hopes of saving something. We could spend massive amounts of money trying to stop or slow global warming. We could also pour that money into a giant cistern with about the same results.
Or we could spend that money preparing ourselves for a planet which paleo-geologic evidence tells us has repeatedly warmed enough to raise the sea levels, change local climates, switch habitats, etc. etc. etc. without good old Homo Sapiens around to help. It would be a pity if Homo Sapiens ended up being one of the multitude of species which does not survive the current warming/cooling cycle.