Lord Nicholas Stern Paints Dire Climate Change Scenario: Mass Migrations, Extended World War

CHARLES J. HANLEY | 02/21/09 06:57 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Mass Migration

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.

Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen _ environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations _ scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.

Their midnight flight was scrubbed on Friday and Saturday because of high winds on the southernmost continent, 3,000 miles from here. While waiting at their Cape Town hotel for the gusts to ease down south, chief sponsor Erik Solheim, Norway's environment minister, improvised with group exchanges over coffee and wine about the future of the planet.

"International diplomacy is all about personal relations," Solheim said. "The more people know each other, the less likely there will be misunderstandings."

Understandings will be vital in this "year of climate," as the world's nations and their negotiators count down toward a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December, target date for concluding a grand new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol _ the 1997 agreement, expiring in 2012, to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations.

Solheim drew together key players for the planned brief visit to Norway's Troll Research Station in East Antarctica.

Story continues below
advertisement

Trying on polar outfits for size on Friday were China's chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, veteran U.S. climate envoy Dan Reifsnyder, and environment ministers Hilary Benn of Britain and Carlos Minc Baumfeld of Brazil.

Later, at dinner, the heavyweights heard from smaller or poorer nations about the trials they face as warming disrupts climate, turns some regions drier, threatens food production in poor African nations.

Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years _ a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.

In the face of such threats, "the rich countries have to give us a helping hand," the African minister said.

But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.

If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 _ by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy.

Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.

But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be "disastrous."

It would "transform where people can live," Stern said. "People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases" _ 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, "because there's no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place."

Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war _ the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more "sustainable" in the future.

"The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe," he said.

After he spoke, Norwegian organizers announced that the forecast looked good for Stern and the rest to fly south on Sunday to further ponder the future while meeting with scientists in the forbidding vastness of Antarctica.

CAPE TOWN, South Africa — If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said. His audience Saturday, small and el...
CAPE TOWN, South Africa — If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said. His audience Saturday, small and el...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
545
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
photo

Global warming deniers, especially Exxon former CEO Rex Tillerson and his "scientist" mercenaries, should be prosecuted for fraud.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 AM on 03/06/2009
- kolorkin I'm a Fan of kolorkin 2 fans permalink

God save the planet. Another sobering call to action; if we as human beings do not put what is priority on top of the agenda, then we surely will be the cause of our own demise. And that is the ultimate tragedy. The planet will survive but will the human beings and other beings on the planet?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:19 PM on 02/26/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Of the 489 Earth and atmospheric scientists surveyed by Harris Interactive, 97 percent said that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years, and 74 percent agreed that "currently available scientific evidence substantiates the occurrence of human-induced greenhouse warming." The findings mark a significant increase in concern over climate change since 1991, when a Gallup survey of the same universe of scientists showed only 60 percent agreed that temperatures were up and 41 percent believed that evidence pointed to human activity as the cause.

The scientists were about evenly divided on whether they thought the effects of global climate change over the next 50 to 100 years were likely to be near catastrophic (41 percent) or moderately dangerous (44 percent).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 AM on 02/26/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

From an article from the American Geological Institute:

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:47 AM on 02/26/2009
- WasteNJ I'm a Fan of WasteNJ 29 fans permalink
photo

Reminds me of one of my favorite Beta testing jobs, the multiplayer video game "Battlefield 2142". The scenario is that global warming has given way to a rapid ice age in the 22nd century, with ice covering much of the northern and southern hemispheres. Massive population migration, war and chaos follow. The remaining land, and resources, are viciously fought for, and happen to be in the middle east, Africa and southern Europe. The US is not even around anymore. Extremely addictive game! Trailer below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-DnK-d_sp0

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 PM on 02/24/2009

while you're there check out FEMA C offins & C oncentration C amps.too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 02/24/2009

Why does the global warming discussion not include over population? Seven billion humans pose a significant load on the earth's resources. Ask the biologists about overshoot. Any and every discussion of climate change should include discussion of the climate consequences of over population. This is vital, considering the degraded living conditions, including fuel, food and water shortages, that millions face daily, and billions will face in the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 02/24/2009

Thank you. The great bulk of problems that this planet faces would either not exist or would be effectively ameliorated if governments had adopted ZPG policies only two decades ago.

That this isn't the crux of the discussion is troubling, but it's symptomatic of a culture that clings to its religious conviction that people NEED to keep on spawning children.

No matter how effective the economic stimulus, all will be for naught if we don't cut back on the indiscriminate breeding.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 PM on 02/24/2009

Hallucinocynic,

Good point. Thanks. One thing, though, not all religious people are against birth control or population control. Unfortunately certain organized religions and the religious right and its ideology (which seems actually irreligious to me) have led others to believe wrong stereotypes about what religion can be and what religious people believe. There are many people who are simultaneously religious and progressive/environmentalist.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:42 PM on 02/27/2009
- V4Vendetta I'm a Fan of V4Vendetta 6 fans permalink
photo

Thank you, you're absolutely correct. Why is there no real discussion of this? The Catholic Church? Politicians too cowardly to tell the truth? Overpopulation was openly discussed in the 1970's, but now nary a whisper.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:15 PM on 02/24/2009

Big Pharm is currently doing alot of experiment drug depopulation on us & has been. We are experimental rats.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:45 PM on 02/24/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Bush was catering to the religious right and stopped paying for birth control and underfunded family planning. Obama has reversed that. Of course, Repubs pushed abstinence only, whereas now, we will have sex education again with information about birth control.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 02/27/2009
- BoulderSue I'm a Fan of BoulderSue 7 fans permalink

Another "thank you", quakergardener.. I think a lot of it has to do with the recent policies of the most powerful country on earth (US) thinking of birth control programs, aid, suppies and education etc. as being sort of a non-issue, not something really worthy of conversation, let alone sufficient action, when it comes to foreign aid, and maybe even a sin (and we aren't the only ones responsible for that last point). Instead we seem to be relying on civil wars, famines and disease to do what genuine efforts at healthy, rational population control that can always be carried out with due respect for and in concordance with the cultural values of a people, might accomplish..Why are there PREGNANT women dying of starvation and disease, even dehydration, in Darfur, Somalia and the Sudan amongst other places? They aren't in the headlines, unfortunately, but a short tour around the "web" will reveal their existence. Pretty sad........

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 02/24/2009
- doriath22 I'm a Fan of doriath22 9 fans permalink

Lack of veritas, like most deniers, has this screwed-up notion that somehow evironmentalists hate people. Nothing could be further from the truth. The prime reason for trying to do something now is to PREVENT our descendants from having to live in caves. Get it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 02/24/2009
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

They don't get it and probably never will. As they stare down a tornado in Manhattan, they'll still be saying global warming is a democratic ploy. Don't forget, they still think dinosaurs were Jesus Horses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 02/24/2009

I remember good ol' Jesus Horses. Didn't he have a show on telemundo in the mid-90's?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 AM on 02/24/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Since it seems impossible to get any AGW skeptics to respond to fact here, I'll just wander over to another section and see if I find them there and at least not let them rant unchallenged about things they refuse to properly research.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:28 AM on 02/24/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

Your warming data are from land stations. Many of these are sited in places where they deliver biased readings ("heat island effect") and so your data are rubbish. The NASA satellite data are not biased, and they show a lack of warming over the past decade.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:32 AM on 02/24/2009
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

You're right. Maybe we should just give Africa to you guys and we'll move forward with our "false readings" and try to save the other continents.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:34 AM on 02/24/2009
- BoulderSue I'm a Fan of BoulderSue 7 fans permalink

Ubi Veritas: so why is Alaska one of , if not THE fastest warming place on earth? It's not an island, and if it were, it would be an awfully big one! Maybe you are thinking of Australia? I've never seen that term:"heat island effect". Where did you find that? Or I'll "google" it and see what that means.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 02/24/2009
- johnnyjust I'm a Fan of johnnyjust 6 fans permalink

It's interesting to me that the bottom line issue concerning Global Warming--and every environmental crusade, really--is a deep hatred of people.

Don't you find that interesting? Me too.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 02/23/2009
- V4Vendetta I'm a Fan of V4Vendetta 6 fans permalink
photo

You're projecting again.

I'll put it a simple Capitalist way that you will understand.

When you mass produce something, it becomes cheaper -- less valuable.

The population of the Earth has risen from just over 1 billion to just under 7 billion in 100 years.

Do you think the value of the average human life has gone up or down under this system?

And you accuse those of us concerned about the current state of the World of a 'deep hatred of people'?

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.

Get out of here you corporate lackey.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 02/23/2009

When you mass produce bricks, they become less valuable. When you "mass produce" people, it is not at all the same. People occupy a good portion of their time creating goods or performing services. More people yields more productivity. There is of course a point where the earth can no longer sustain the amount of agriculture/horticulture needed to keep us alive, but that is not an issue (by the time it is technology will be unimaginable to say the least... I'm talking way post-scarcity).

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found spitting out catchy phrases in order to cover up the huge mistakes in your logic.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

I rarely find thing that are untrue to be interesting. Are you saying that because I understand the science behind global warming, and I believe that science, that I hate people?

In my case that would not be true.

In general it's wrong.

You have no data to back up your statement.

There is no science, psychological, anthropological or sociological, to back up your assertion.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:49 PM on 02/23/2009
photo

Good ole' Johnny(un)just; never fails to deliver the non sequitur.

So I'll ask you once again, where did you receive your training in the Scientific Method?

Still waiting (though not holding my breath).

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 02/23/2009
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

Science? There is no such thing to these guys...it's all a ploy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 02/24/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

No, I don't see that at all, but I can see why you might get that reaction from people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 02/24/2009
- jeffgolin I'm a Fan of jeffgolin 11 fans permalink

So, we pimp the planet to be destroyed by the highest bidder? Who says they can't afford a tax? It's been 20 years and the victims of Exxon-Valdiz are still waiting for their first dollar. Meanwhile they get the Supreme Couruot to cut the punitive damages award down to one days profits. Face it, this is something that Capitalism is not designed to solve, but democracy is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 PM on 02/23/2009

The "scientific consensus" that catastrophic climate change caused by humans exists is a falacy. The "consensus" was put forward in an article in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science with no qualifications in climatology. Further research into this consensus has completely debunked it.

The climate is a large scale chaotic system, and in the first paper EVER WRITTEN on chaos theory, Lorenz proves that making predictions in chaotic systems requires perfect knowledge of all conditions at a single point in time. He even used the global climate as an example of a system that is almost literally impossible to accurately model.

Climate scares have come and gone in the past, the thing we haven't seemed to learn from them is that they don't pan out.

As for the idea that scientists are trustworthy sources... it isn't true. Scientists have a huge interest in making people think their area of study is worth funding. Scaring the population of a coming apocalypse is a great way to secure grants. Most scientists do not engage in such dishonest practice, but I can almost guarantee that most of the scare mongers are.

I still believe that environmental responsibility is important, but the scare tactics currently in play are there to serve political and economic agendas.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:12 PM on 02/23/2009

On another note... CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas; the vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from plain old water vapor. It amazes me how many people never consider that giant nuclear furnace 93 million miles away (the sun) as a source of climate change.

The most successful models of climate are based on solar flare activity--when the sun flares, a solar wind blows particles that would usually enter the atmosphere away from the earth. These particles are what cause water vapor to condense into clouds. More flares => less ions entering the atmoshere => less clouds => less protection from solar radiaton => higher temperatures.

Ah, I digress. The scientific arguments for and against catastrophic global warming can be tossed out the window for all I care. Common sense along with a bit of digging to see who can benefit the most from scaring us into governmental regulation of industry and trade (anti-industrial Marxists) should ease your climate fears.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:23 PM on 02/23/2009
- V4Vendetta I'm a Fan of V4Vendetta 6 fans permalink
photo

"Common sense along with a bit of digging to see who can benefit the most from scaring us into governmental regulation of industry and trade"

-------- That would be Earth and all its inhabitants, including you.

Learn about cause and effect, learn about the exponential function and what happens to any organism that continues to 'grow ' in a finite space.

You don't need a science degree to understand this, just some critical thinking, unimpaired by ideology.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:47 PM on 02/23/2009

Actually that is incorrect, the most successful models were tested against past climate data and the ones that were a best fit were the ones that included both "natural" causes of global warming, i.e. the sun, water vapor, etc. AND the increased levels of CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels. When the models were compared against only one or the other, none of them were a good fit to the historical data.
Perhaps you should read the entire article instead of cherry picking your data to support your arguement. That is what politicians do instead of listening to the whole story.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:59 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

..."he vast majority of the greenhouse effect comes from plain old water vapor..."
True, but what does this have to do with global warming?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 AM on 02/24/2009
- doriath22 I'm a Fan of doriath22 9 fans permalink

Spoken like another bright boy who hasn't got a clue how modern science is done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:52 PM on 02/23/2009

Nice catch on the typo... but if you somehow have gotten the impression that I've no idea how science works I'd love to hear how I've erred rather than an unsupported attack.

I hear that people with liberal arts degrees focusing on women's studies and their relation to 14th century gay afro-jewish culture are great sources for learning about "modern science", and that's what I peg you as... so enlighten me.

Then again, backing up assertions is something that the global warming hysteria mob isn't too good at, so I won't hold my breath.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 02/23/2009
- doriath22 I'm a Fan of doriath22 9 fans permalink

Oh, and btw, it's" fallacy"

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:53 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

The "scientific consensus" that catastrophic climate change caused by humans exists is a falacy.
Wrong

...was put forward in an article in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes...
Wrong - note, I'm not saying he did not write an article.

The climate is a large scale chaotic system
Wrong. There is no evidence to support this idea. Weather is chaotic, I've seen some scientists speculate that climate may have chaotic components but no one has provided anything beyond that.

...first paper EVER WRITTEN on chaos theory,...
Wrong - Lorenz was the first to have discussed chaos in atmospheric modeling. Chaos theory was discovered by Henri Poincaré in 1890.

...Climate scares...
Wrong - you give no examples or references, I am not aware of any such scares so I claim you are wrong.

As for the idea that scientists are trustworthy sources...
Wrong - Scientists are about as trustworthy a group as there is. The nature of the work tends to lead to rapid discovery of scientific fraud.

...scare tactics ...
wrong - I am not aware of any scare tactics by climate scientists - please give examples.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:47 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Typo, he should have been she as in ...she did not write an article

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:09 AM on 02/24/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

Boddah, you are using scare tactics to distract and attempt to keep people from listening to the truth. What would be your purpose for doing that? Do you want to keep driving your SUV or do you have a lot of shares in fossil fuel industries? You remind me of the bad guys in old western movies who were always scamming to get their paws on people's land, so they could get their water, oil or minerals. They always tried to frame the good guys. Now, you are doing the same thing. It is amazing how old tricks keep being used.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:04 AM on 02/24/2009
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, he's a real life Clint Eastwood.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 02/24/2009

There is a way to measure climate change with lightning strikes. There is a sensor thatcan measure the frequency of lightning strikes simultaneously anywhere in the world. The warmer the climate, the more lightning occurs. They are becoming more frequent.

People are arguing back and forth about cooling/warming. It could be both. If the Greenland ice sheet melts enough fresh water into the Atlantic to stop the ocean's conveyor system, it would mean that warming CAUSED cooling. Lightly-colored ice helps reflect some of the sunlight back into space. If that lightly-colored surface is replaced by a darker surface, the heat is absorbed, causing more heat to build-up, causing more melting ice.

We are causing it, and IT is complicated. I'll trust a scientist before I'll trust an economist anyday. Scientists are less likely to be in it for reasons other than science.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:38 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

I guess I could look it up but do you have a reference? If you post it, others might be interested too. I know about the sensors and lightning but I was unaware of "The warmer the climate, the more lightning occurs." It sounds interesting, I think I know why it might happen, and am curious if I'm right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:57 PM on 02/23/2009

Here is the information that he is inaccurately drawing conclusions from:
Schneider, S.H., A. Rosencranz, and J.O. Niles, (eds.), Climate Change Policy: A Survey, Island Press, Washington D.C., 2002.

on page 30 Figure 1.10 you will find the informatiion I am referring to in my statement.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:27 AM on 02/24/2009

There is not a consensus amongst climate scientists that we are causing it. A published lie led many to believe that there is, but that was a... lie.

You are correct when you say it is complicated; the climate is a system so huge that there is no way anybody who isn't extremely pretentious would venture to make the kind of predictions that are being made by alarmists. Some models are moderately successful (the most accurate of which do not even take CO2 into account), but the climate is just too chaotic to make any legitimate long term predictions about.

The theory of global warming is actually based off of a paper written in the 70's that was initially laughed at (due to the global cooling scare that was currently going on :P), but later embraced by the environmentalist movement due to an unforseen reversal of the cooling trend.

I can't wait until this warming reverses and the same exact people who were so confident about their dire predictions swap their bumper stickers out for global cooling ones so the cycle of misguided activism can begin again.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:45 PM on 02/23/2009

Again you cherry pick your information, there is consensus about global warming, the main difference is that different scientists use different models and some models predict 2 degrees mean rise in global temperature to the other extreme of 10 degrees mean rise in global temperature. Notice I said mean global temperature? What that means is that in a given specific location on Earth the temperature will be much higher than normal or not. It doesn't mean that all temperatures in all locations will rise 2 - 10 degrees. It means that tempertures could rise much more than 10 degrees in certain locations.
Also, if you take the average of all the models, which is what the IPCC did, then you have a 3 - 5 degree increase in global mean temperature in the next hundred years if we do nothing to change our output of greenhouse gases.
You may not care what happens to future generations or perhaps you believe that technology will come to the rescue, but let me ask you this; do you really want to gamble with your families lives? your children? your children's children? If there is a way to make their lives better that would require a little sacrafice on your part now, wouldn't you do it for them? I find it hard to believe that you would endanger their lives just so you can live with conveniences that will kill them and the future of this planet.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:19 AM on 02/24/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

Scientists make predictions about extremely complicated systems (nature) all the time. That is what science is all about.

I've already corrected you on your first point (several times in fact).

Also corrected your third paragraph - just plain not true.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:20 AM on 02/24/2009
- rshrink I'm a Fan of rshrink 58 fans permalink

You might want to hold your breath.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 AM on 02/24/2009
- shanefish I'm a Fan of shanefish 10 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, and you probably thought your home was going to go up by 10% this year too. Wait and see. I just wish we could keep all you guys on the same continent together while you watch your theories, one by one, go to the way-side. You just repeat Limbaugh's arguementas without real thought and it is very apparent.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:56 AM on 02/24/2009

Threats to National/World security:

1. Climate change.
2. Recession
3. Al Qaeda

People don't get the order right, but they will. Because of #3, we have less money for #2. Because we have less money for #2, we can't address #1. Thanks, George! Because you were so scared of the scary terrorists, we can't deal with real threats.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:34 PM on 02/23/2009
- wagadog I'm a Fan of wagadog 46 fans permalink

The focus on Al Qaida was deliberate misdirection, so that big business could show wanton disregard for economy and ecology in the course of looting the world.

He made sure they got theirs, the haves and the have-mores.

Enjoy the trickle down.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 02/23/2009
- Vixter I'm a Fan of Vixter 11 fans permalink

Oh get over yourselves!! I started to read the comments & it turned into a kindergarten fight - does too, does not, ad nauseum. The real truth, whether you believe in global warming or not, is the FACT that we only have one earth. If we don't take care of it SOON we do not get another chance.

All well read people realize that dubya censored the science & math findings for the last 8 yrs. Now is our 2nd chance. If we foul it up, story is finished...no do overs. So quit arguing, AND FIX IT.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:57 PM on 02/23/2009
- Pharos I'm a Fan of Pharos 9 fans permalink

If you read carefully, there are some well written and thoughtful comments. Yes it is frustrating to see some of the childish nonsense repeated over and over but isn't that true in life as well? Arguing, as in serious discussion, can be a useful tool for arriving at the truth.

One way of thinking about the discussion here is to imagine the Earth as a marble in a bowl. If the bowl is bumped, the marble moves. When you stop moving the bowl, the marble returns to the bottom, its equilibrium condition. If the Earth stays in the bowl humans can survive. If the disturbance is large the marble flies out of the bowl and does not return to the bottom. Then we are in uncharted territory. A large bump (volcano) may send the marble near the top, but not over the edge. A small series of bumps repeated over and over may cause the marble to spin ever faster till until it reaches the top and flies out of the bowl. Some people here are discussing how the Earth moves in the bowl, some deny the existence of the bowl.

There is a lot we don't know, but we do know more about science now than we did even ten years ago. Problems with simple solutions have most likely been solved. We will have to make decisions based on the best, and incomplete, scientific information we have. Success requires good faith efforts, not guarantees, and putting aside ideology.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:14 PM on 02/23/2009
- UbiVeritas I'm a Fan of UbiVeritas 3 fans permalink

So, following your marble in the bowl analogy, what is the long-run equilibrium average temp of the earth supposed to be? Warmer than now? Cooler than now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:24 PM on 02/23/2009
- Chavez08 I'm a Fan of Chavez08 58 fans permalink
photo

The movie "Children of Men" comes to mind....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 02/23/2009
photo

I prefer to see this as an opportunity akin to "Things to Come" from the 1930s; if we humans have the guts to reach out and grasp our future with both hands, instead of clinging to fear and the status quo of corporatism run riot so a few may continue to impoverish billions, through no other virtues than their ability to manipulate existing financial laws and the lawmakers that accept their "campaign contributions."

Enough is enough. Our children's futures, their very lives are now at stake.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 02/23/2009
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (8 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect