bearassnekkid said:
Jinx 2 said:
bearassnekkid said:
Jinx 2 said:
Osodecentx said:
Jinx 2 said:
What a 2C increase in average global temperature will do: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-report-half-degree.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
What, specifically, do you recommend?
First, let's get past the guys like Doc Holliday who think their observations of a melting ice cube in a water glass constitute authoritative scientific evidence that human activity--specifically, carbon emissions--isn't warming the planet really fast--to the point where some coastlines will be inundated and some island nations, like the Maldives, may no longer exist.
Along with the idiots who spout the 'climate has always changed" canard without also noting the fact that the planet has never before hosted the large a number of people, nor have the people living here had the technological means to heat and cool their homes and travel globally using carbon-based fuels. We are already at the point where we're going to kill the coral reefs, and we're also killing off the rain forests, which serve an important purpose in maintaining our atmosphere.
Then I'd like to hear recommendations from the guys with Ph.D.s who have concluded we're in big trouble about what we can do to stop emitting carbon at such high levels and what's not possible.
There are so many variables and so many things we don't know that scientists have already made one bad mistake--the effects are coming sooner rather than later. I will probably live at most another 30 years, and they will manifest during my lifetime. They are already in North Carolina and California.
Possibly the only positive in that is that all the conservatives who have claimed we're contending with normal variations in a planetary cycle are going to see how wrong they are before and realize how badly they've screwed their own kids and grandkids by their stubborness and selfishness. Or not. Some of these guys are hopeless.
As a small start, we COULD stop trying to resurrect the coal industry in the U.S. That's almost as dumb as building a wall.
Serious question: Why do you care? Is it because you want to save people? Is it people that you're worried about? Because even if your doomsday scenario occurs and water levels rise, this isn't happening overnight. You know that, right? People will just move. Over very long periods of time.
Plus, I can't imagine it's the people you're worried about because, after all, it's people that are causing this "disaster" to your sacred planet right? All of these climate changes have occurred in the past, but THIS one, well, this one is caused by people. So it's way worse. And people will be affected. If only there weren't so many people. Which brings us to another point.
If you're so worried about saving people, why are you totally cool with slaughtering millions of them before they come through the birth canal? Or is that really why you support abortion-on-demand? As population control to save the "environment?" Are you sacrificing those babies on the altar to Mother Nature? Your worship of nature borders on paganism, and your lack of regard for human life is barbaric. So tell me, why do you really care if some polar ice (that was once water), turns back into water?
I'm mystified at how people who won't do anything about climate change and repeat idiotic arguments to justify their inaction can refer to themselves as pro-life.
I"m mystified that someone who purports to care about saving the planet in order to save lives doesn't give a chit about mass infanticide RIGHT NOW. You aren't worshiping the planet for people's sake, your'e just worshipping the planet.
Climate changes. Man's presence on earth affects this. So would a major volcano or an asteroid. If it's getting slightly warmer, human beings will adapt. ALL the ice you're worried about melting WAS ONCE WATER. If some of it melts, it will be returning to a former state. And it will happen slowly. Taxing carbon emissions isn't going to change that.
Worry more about about the human beings that are being killed RIGHT NOW instead of the future ones you're supposedly worried about possibly being killed later.
I don't consider abortion "mass infanticide." I consider having control over your body over and above what the federal government wants you to do with it a basic human right for women. We're just going to have to disagree with that.
I'm one of the only women posting here, and it doesn't surprise me that many more women than men share my view on this issue, and that more men from a fundamentalist, authoritarian culture where men head the household and women "submit" think the government should make such decisions for women because, left to our silly little sinful devices, we won't make the decision you want us to make.
For some posters, that issue alone makes it impossible to have a dialog with me or anyone else who believes women should be able to make such intensely personal decisions for themselves with no government interference. Abortion is the only issue that matters to you, and if someone believes women should have the right to choose that with no government interference whatsoever, that precludes any other conversation If that's you, please put me on ignore.
For the record, I don't vote that issue. In the last several elections, climate change has been the sole issue that dictated my vote. I think it's that important.
Human beings are resourceful and we will survive whatever happens--but in fewer numbers and, likely, with harder lives. There will also be a good deal of upheaval as "climate change refugees" are forced from their homes. I fear these people will be the Palestinians of the future; no one will want to take them in. The nasty refugee battles of this day--Syrians no one wants dying at sea, people leaving failed states to seek asylum at our borders only to have their children taken from them in an act of gratuitous cruelty and stuck in warehouses or tents out in the desert or lost in a poorly organized foster care system--will pale by comparison. The refugee children matter so little to the U.S. government they were taken from their parents as infants until a federal judge stopped that inhumane practice. And lots people who are most virulently pro-life (Jeff Sessions is hardly liberal) developed and supported that criminal practice.
It takes a tremendous amount of selfishness and obtuseness to ignore a very real threat to our planet, which we can't replace, to say, "It's really too late to do anything" when your party is a big reason we didn't do anything, or to think the economy is the only thing that's really important--and what happens to that when the cost of natural disasters starts mounting? How many Katrinas and Florences and Harveys can we recover from?
Anybody on here done estate planning? You try to plan for the worst that can happen while hoping for the best, because you don't want to burden your children with the astronomical cost of nursing care for years, but are also hoping you will instead spend those years and that money traveling with your spouse and leaving a legacy for your children. We're doing the opposite as a nation.