No wonder you are broke dumb fuck.
Atmospheric CO2 hits landmark 415 ppm
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
No wonder you are broke dumb fuck.
Certainly not. But my point doesn't require all Boomers to be the same. It merely requires enough of a statistical tendency among Boomers to result in social and political changes over time. That's exactly what I think has happened.
You misunderstood. Try thinking next time. Good luck.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
OK, I'll try. You said, "political solution". What's the problem again?
OK, I'll try. You said, "political solution". What's the problem again?
Dangerously rapid global warming.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
If you find GW dangerous you must live a pretty sheltered life. I find way more things that are far more dangerous than that.
Anyway that sounds very nature-like to me.
No. If I did, I'd be like one of those imbecilic right-wingers, sheltered within a homogeneous small-town rural lifestyle, and scared to death of all those scary brown people crossing the border, along with Muslims, gays, transgender people using the bathroom, and all the other piddly concerns that keep the gelded conservative masses shitting themselves on command. I save my concerns for bigger picture stuff, and global warming is definitely a risk to mankind on an entirely different order of magnitude than the garbage that keeps the wingnuts up at night.
Translation: I am sheltered. And never leave my liberal burrough.
Because an expanded area of arable land is a "bad thing" in Leftgoofythink.
There used to be farming in Greenland, AND northern Scandinavia....hopefully, will be again.
Still waiting for one of the Warmist Deluded Climatistas to produce the verifiable, repeatable chemical test proving the THERMAL RETENTION PROPERTIES OF .000415 concentrations of CO2.....
Countdown to AD HOM attack instead...3....2....1.....
You and I are obscure posters on an obscure message board, with neither of us having the slightest professional training or professional expertise to assess global warming or its environmental impacts.
It does not matter what you think. Or what I think. Reputable and highly prestigious scientific and health organizations worldwide and internationally consider global warming, and its affects on precipitation patterns, drought, agriculture, access to fresh water, extreme heat conditions, storm surges, and extreme weather events to be a significant risk to public health and the global environment.
No, I'm very much not sheltered. I have experience living in several states and three different countries. The thing about wingnuts, though, is they think the only experience that matters is their own incredibly narrow experience. Basically, if all you've ever done is live in a majority-white, majority-Christian, majority-native-born, rural or suburban, politically conservative setting, that, to them, is the "real world," and so you're not sheltered. If, however, you'd only ever lived in, say, NYC, which is one of the most diverse places in the world, with plenty of people from every corner of the world, every faith tradition, etc., that would be "sheltered," because none of those types of people count in the conservative mind.
Last edited:
Your surrounding streets are not different countries. Nice try though.
No. The decrease in the area of arable land, due to sea level rise and desertification, is part of the problem.
Still waiting for one of the Warmist Deluded Climatistas to produce the verifiable, repeatable chemical test proving the THERMAL RETENTION PROPERTIES OF .000415 concentrations of CO2.....
hahahahaa! You launched an ad hominem attack ("warmist deluded climatistas") and then pre-emptively cowered from a response in kind. What is wrong with you people?
Then explain the previous agriculture in the HEART of GREENLAND, and FAR NORTH in Scandanavia. The Earth was not "destroyed by rising sea levels" then, despite (obvious) more warming. The watermark on my dock is the same as it has been for fifty years....
~ HA! HA! An AD HOM is a DIRECT PERSONAL ATTACK...please name the PERSON I directly cited.
"What is wrong with you people"?~
Last edited:
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
I found whitewater kayaking to be extremely dangerous.
In fact, anyone who does it seriously and long enough personally knows at least one person that has died doing it.
I find motorcycle riding to be dangerous because there's no protection in a traffic accident.
Those are but two examples of things I find far, far more dangerous than GW.
I can give more examples if you like but the ones you just gave don't even register with me.
I guess you're easily scared
Take my word for it - the sky isn't falling and never will.
The UK and South Korea are, though.
Nobody doubts that climate change will mean some places become more fertile and some less. The question is the net impact. There will be less overall land as sea level rises, so right there we should expect less overall arable land. But even if we got more new arable land from melting tundra than from spreading deserts, etc., the point is that rapid climate change would leave agricultural and social infrastructure out of position.
For example, say in country A you have rice terraces that took decades to build up, expert rice farmers with skills that took generations to perfect, and assorted other economic and social infrastructure to bring a good rice harvest in. And say in country B you have expertise and infrastructure optimized for, say, sheep-herding. If you get a rapid climate change that leaves country B with the rainfall and temperatures needed for rice farming, then maybe in the long term it won't matter if the same change results in country A no longer being good for rice. Eventually, country B can change over its infrastructure, and its people can learn new skills, and it can bring in rice harvest the way country A once did. Maybe even your hope would play out and there'd be a net gain in arable land, and the long-term productivity of the land would be even greater than before the change. Yay. But, in the meantime, you have generations of sub-optimal population and skill distribution, stranded infrastructure, and expenses from needing to build out new infrastructure, and that will mean generations of much worse agricultural productivity than you'd otherwise have had.... meaning lots of starvation.
That's the problem with conservatives. By nature, they're simple-minded people, so thinking in terms of dynamic systems and concepts like pace of change is really just beyond their mental abilities. If you move beyond a mere assumption that there will be a net gain in arable land, you overload their limited IQs and they shut down.
It's conceivable that there's been no sea level change in your particular location. Or it's conceivable that you're simply lying, or too stupid to have noticed the change. Whatever the reality of that situation is, though, there's been measurable increases in sea levels, in terms of the global average, over the course of those 50 years. There's no honest scientist who denies that.
Your personal attack was against those who support the scientific consensus generally, as opposed to any individual. But the funny part is when you then went into duck-and-cover mode, scared to death someone might give you a dose of that same medicine. You're a riot.
And there is NO WAY IN HELL that the sea will swallow more land than is freed from ice.
.... and if you live in fear of those things, you can take simple steps to avoid exposing yourself to those risks. If you're so easily frightened, you can simply avoid riding a motorcycle or kayaking. But when it comes to global warming, it's different. The horrible people who are blocking climate regulations are effectively imposing the risk on all of us, and there's no ability to move to a different planet to avoid it.