I am not sure why I am going to bother. It likely won't make you come off of the fence. But I will endulge you once I have more time to look this stuff up for you since your google key and the ability to connect the dots are broken.

4/7/2007 11:02:03 PM

connect the dots? that doesnt sound very accurate

i mean the vast majority consensus was that saddam had WMDs...

which goes back to my point about not blindly trusting predictions and assumptions just because the majority currently believes them

4/7/2007 11:10:10 PM

The consensus of people who wanted to invade Iraq believed he had WMDs. Hell, my own boss still thinks he had/has them somewhere.

But when the data and effects are there in your face it's pretty hard to ignore them. Here is something worth taking a look over. http://members.aol.com/trajcom/private/carbon3.htm

[Edited on April 7, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : I know that if I spell something wrong then Webster will address nothing else but my spelling.]

4/7/2007 11:17:17 PM

Quote :

"This debate is primarily a clash between science and economics."

false...its between scientists who think they have everything understood, and the population of the scientific community who values the skepticism that is inherent in keeping the scientific process alive

Quote :

"The dominant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide"

false...its water vapor

its not usually a good sign when the thesis of an article contains multiple glaring false statements

i think the bigger flaw is that the article attempts to essentially understand the earth's entire climate based on a mere 100 years of data...data that only includes co2 concentrations and time...it doesnt look at solar radiation, it doesnt look at long term trends, it doesnt look at other gases

some people think they have everything figured out...others realize that they dont

4/7/2007 11:22:50 PM

The first one is your opinion.

As for the second it's up for interpretation

Quote :

"Water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for about 60 to 70 percent of the natural greenhouse effect."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504/Greenhouse_Effect.html

So if he is talking about natural greenhouse gas then you are right, but if he is talking about human contribution to greenhouse gases then his point stands. And since the article pertains to anthropogenic effects then I would tend to side with the latter.

4/7/2007 11:31:34 PM

the article pertains to comparing anthropogenic versus natural gases...it pertains to both

your siding for the latter is essentially ignoring other important variables that affect the climate

you cant understand something as vast and complex as the climate and all the processes that effect it if you only focus on one or two of the many many inputs, which has seemed to be an inherent flaw in many of the articles on climate change...even the ones that only focus on solar radation for example...those are in many senses just as flawed as the ones that only focus on co2

solar radiation, co2, methane, and water vapor are just a few of the contributing factors that go into the climate...and the fact that its difficult if not currently impossible to accurately measure the individual components of how each of these 4 things contribute to the climate is just another reason why our understanding of the climate still has a long way to go

4/7/2007 11:35:12 PM

Quote :

"At Raleigh-Durham International Airport, the thermometer read 27 degrees Fahrenheit on Sunday morning, a degree below the 1975 record. In Greensboro, 25 degrees broke the 1990 record of 28. Wilmington got down to 29 degrees, four below the 1972 record. Asheville set a record for the second day in a row, with 22 degrees on Sunday and 20 degrees on Saturday, the National Weather Service reported. Saturday also was a snowfall record for any date in April, with 1.2 inches on the ground. At North Myrtle Beach, the Sunday morning low of 29 was 1 degree below a record that had stood since 1950."

I sure am glad I didn't set my garden out early because I believe all this stuff

If it's actually happening, I have a feeling that it's because there are some things that are well beyond our control and that no matter what we do we're still gonna get fucked when that time comes


if we're that concerned about the world population we should worry about getting food and crops to people that need it and helping insure clean water for people that need it... that would help more than us buying "carbon credits"

4/8/2007 5:36:17 PM

Quote :

"record that had stood since 1950"

because that is enough time to accurately predict the effects of global warming...

4/8/2007 5:41:05 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/


I'm with this guy, how are we going to rely on forecast models that go 50 years when they can't predict the weather tomorrow

4/8/2007 11:17:41 PM

Do you really not understand the difference between predicting a particular day's weather and a long-term worldwide trend?

4/8/2007 11:41:24 PM

But its okay to base future climate predictions on horribly inaccurate computer models?

Quote :

"I would have hoped better from you. Leave the stupidity to the likes of hooksaw, tke-teg, and the other host of close minded nay-sayers."

Figures, I've brought more intelligent conversation, facts, information, and links than most to this thread, and it burns you so much that you have to baselessly attack me.

Quote :

"i heard something like all the developed nations will not be affected as much as like south america, asia, and africa, and i kinda was like "good""

I'm not sure how true that is since the average temperature increase in the Southern Hemisphere is almost an unnoticeable amount, even given a tiny scale of the past 100 yrs.

[Edited on April 8, 2007 at 11:46 PM. Reason : k]

4/8/2007 11:45:03 PM

First of all, I'm done with treetwista. He is nothing but a complete troll and has no basic knowledge of the topic. Funny thing is, solar irradiance has been on the decline since just before the turn of the century and the small amount it oscillates on a fixed cycle is not important anyway. At least in the human span.

and this is not a matter of catastrophic world ending effects. The planet is not being destroyed it is only being altered slightly to put it in perspective but we are sensitive to slight changes and civilization would have never started unless we felt like things were stable enough to stay in one place without worrying about conditions changing.

The occurances of "unusual" weather will increase as weather patterns change. Some areas will have more floods some areas will have more droughts. Right now its cold on the east coast but very warm out west. Warming and a ridge of high pressure can displace cool air by forcing a trough of low pressure. I'm not saying thats whats going on now my point is just for every action theres a reaction. THOUSANDS of years long term warming would shutdown currents and trigger an ice age which would rebalance everything.

Quote :

"If it's actually happening, I have a feeling that it's because there are some things that are well beyond our control and that no matter what we do we're still gonna get fucked when that time comes"

Good point but even if it was being driven by other forces do we really want to compound the process? It almost seems like someone being diagnosed with skin cancer going to layout in the sun. Also, I'll remind you again "we" (the 8 rich nations) aren't going to be "fucked" at all. Sure we'll spend money and our economy may take a hit but nothing major.

Quote :

"I'm not sure how true that is since the average temperature increase in the Southern Hemisphere is almost an unnoticeable amount, even given a tiny scale of the past 100 yrs. "

Well the warmer temperatures aren't going to directly hurt anything. It's the weather patterns driven by several things such as ocean salinity, polar-equatorial temperature difference, temperature driven winds and other factors that has people worried.

Salinity drives currents which are vital in the redistribution of heat and moisture from the tropics to the temperate zones. Without these loops the tropics would be much warmer and wetter while the temperate areas would be more like the poles (colder and drier).

Those are all speculative affects of global warming with which the exact details are unkown, but there will be changes.

One thing is for sure though, with the current temperature, ice is melting. Its already happening and can be noticed on large scales each year even visible from space.

Even if the global temperature miraculously stayed constant at it is today much of the arctic, antarctic, and high altitude glaciers would continue melting at an increasing rate. We aren't that fortunate though as its certain temperatures will increase speeding up the process exponentially

repercussions-non speculative FACTS (happening as we post)
-as arctic melts more ocean is revealed. extra radiation that was once reflected by ice will now be asborbed by open ocean. ocean has a hgher heat capacity than ice and this extra radiation and melted ice will increase sea level, and temperature(thus speeding up ice melt by melting from below and dominoing the cycle), decrease sea salinity

-mountain glaciers are the prime source of fresh water in much of the world. The main example is the ganges bramaputra(sp?) basin. It is fed almost 100% by seasonal glacial melt (left over from the ice age). If you went up the himalayas each year for the last five years you would have had at least an extra mile of climbing before you reached the ice each time. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people depend solely on these rivers for a clean water supply. The nile is another example. It doesn't rain in egypt.

-Rising sea levels from all this ice. duh



last thing..

water on earth
97% oceans
2.9% glacial(soon to join the ocean category)
.1% 1 thousanth of the h2o on this planet is fresh liquid so the "most abundant compound" thing is misleading.

Also note that although rain feeds back into fresh water rivers are constantly "dumping" fresh water into salt water.

The amazon dumps about 58 million gallons fresh water into the ocean every second.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 1:05 AM. Reason : ice melts ocean wamrs which melts more ice which wamrs ocean]

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 1:12 AM. Reason : yup]

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 1:14 AM. Reason : V didn't say that although its very possible the main concearn is lack of water]

4/9/2007 1:02:07 AM

Hey dumbass, the most recent IPCC report predicted a sea level rise between 7 and 17 inches over the next century. They say that 2/3rds of that will be due to thermal expansion, and only 1/3rd due to glaciers melting.

So shut the fuck up about glaciers and sea levels rising 20 feet.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 1:08 AM. Reason : 1]

4/9/2007 1:06:03 AM

Aritstotle likes to use fear to try and get his point across

4/9/2007 2:34:01 AM

Quote :

"Funny thing is, solar irradiance has been on the decline since just before the turn of the century and the small amount it oscillates on a fixed cycle is not important anyway. At least in the human span."

huh? Care to elaborate.

4/9/2007 2:36:14 AM

Quote :

"Aritstotle likes to use fear to try and get his point across "

pot kettle black

4/9/2007 2:44:00 AM

Quote :

"the article pertains to comparing anthropogenic versus natural gases...it pertains to both your siding for the latter is essentially ignoring other important variables that affect the climate you cant understand something as vast and complex as the climate and all the processes that effect it if you only focus on one or two of the many many inputs, which has seemed to be an inherent flaw in many of the articles on climate change...even the ones that only focus on solar radation for example...those are in many senses just as flawed as the ones that only focus on co2 solar radiation, co2, methane, and water vapor are just a few of the contributing factors that go into the climate...and the fact that its difficult if not currently impossible to accurately measure the individual components of how each of these 4 things contribute to the climate is just another reason why our understanding of the climate still has a long way to go"

full of fear. Damn that treetwista10 and his relentless fear mongering.

4/9/2007 2:50:28 AM

^ Those are all of his own assertions.

His assertions are as good (or as bad...) as anyone elses, Aristotle's included. Except Aristotle's view seems to have more support within the scientific community.

I've read articles btw that consider albedo, co2, water vapor, and solar radiation, and they basically state that they are all interconnected. Increased co2 causes temp. increases in certain areas, which causes increased water vapor, which in a positive feed back loop screws up the temp. balances even more. There are other more important factors, but it seems absurd to claim than in the literally thousands of pages of reports that have been commissioned about this, no one's look at them like treetwista.

4/9/2007 3:05:13 AM

pot kettle black? how have i ever used fear to try and get my point across???

btw here are the average temperatures for january and february 2007 based on average temperatures from january 1971-2000 and february 1971-2000


January, 2007


February, 2007

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

Yet people will swear "2007 is already on pace to be one of the hottest on record"

4/9/2007 3:11:07 AM

Quote :

"pot kettle black? how have i ever used fear to try and get my point across??? "

I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but you do it in other threads.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/ipcc.htm

These people seem more authoritative to me. Until a similarly thorough study that shows climate change from humans doesn't exist, it seems more prudent to take actions in consideration of climate change than to stay the course.

^ When you do it up to March (the most recent month):


srsly, what did you think you were doing? In any case, that really is not a conclusive metric either way of climate change, since climate change is an overall trend, not something 3 months worth of data can indicate.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 3:17 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2007 3:14:15 AM

Quote :

"but you do it in other threads"

name one

Quote :

"since climate change is an overall trend, not something 3 months worth of data can indicate. "

or 100 years of data

if you want to try and preach environmental responsibility and whatnot, then thats all fine and dandy...but dont try to spout things out as indisputable facts like aristotle does when they're anything but that

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 3:20 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 3:16:09 AM

^ When correlation and causation intersect, you know you're on to something.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 3:20 AM. Reason : ^ and the N&O illegal immigrant thread, any torture thread, any thread WRT the iraq war]

4/9/2007 3:19:40 AM

why dont you quote one single example of me fear mongering...just one example to prove you're not simply trolling me

4/9/2007 3:20:58 AM

I could VERY easily do it, but it would throw this thread off track. I would PM it to you if you like.

4/9/2007 3:21:46 AM

please do since it seems to me you're just trolling me to try and diminish the credit of someone who has always been on the fence on the whole climate change topic

4/9/2007 3:22:36 AM

Jan-Feb 2007 are the 2nd warmest to date globally
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/global.html#Temp

4/9/2007 4:36:24 AM

Quote :

"I could VERY easily do it, but it would throw this thread off track. "

please dont let that stop you.

it certainly hasnt stopped TrollTwista

4/9/2007 4:38:03 AM

longer growing season FTW

4/9/2007 4:39:56 AM

Quote :

"The occurances of "unusual" weather will increase as weather patterns change. Some areas will have more floods some areas will have more droughts. Right now its cold on the east coast but very warm out west. Warming and a ridge of high pressure can displace cool air by forcing a trough of low pressure. I'm not saying thats whats going on now my point is just for every action theres a reaction. THOUSANDS of years long term warming would shutdown currents and trigger an ice age which would rebalance everything."

Funny, b/c the biggest global temperature change will be in the poles (if the models are correct, which they're not) which would make the overall temperature distribution of the global more similar, reducing chaos in the global climate and REDUCE extreme weather.

and Seriously, get off this glaciers are melting crap, b/c for every melting glacier there is one growing.

And once again, for people that don't know or forget: I'm not disputing that the earth is getting warmer. I'm just disputing that humans are the cause of it.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:23 AM. Reason : natural changes ftw]

4/9/2007 10:16:58 AM

Quote :

"Funny, b/c the biggest global temperature change will be in the poles (if the models are correct, which they're not) which would make the overall temperature distribution of the global more similar, reducing chaos in the global climate and REDUCE extreme weather."

so warmer poles make the weather "less chaotic." please indulge me. how did you come to that conclusion?

and if you're not disputing that the earth is getting warmer, wouldn't it follow that glaciers would shrink?

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:25 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:23:42 AM

I didn't come to this conclusion. I'm quoting Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor, from a debate about global warming aired last month on NPR.

If you know much about weather and storms you'd know that most of them originate from large temperature differences. Need I say more?

4/9/2007 10:26:59 AM

i'd like to know how changes in poles result in less temperature difference for the rest of the world.

Quote :

"Need I say more?"

yes

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:28:20 AM

B/c the greatest temperature differences in the world right now are at the poles. So if global warming effects the poles the most, that gap is reduced. Does that spell it out enough for you man?

4/9/2007 10:38:59 AM

first of all, i seriously wanted to know. i don't know why you're getting some sort of tone with me.

second, why does this theory carry more weight for you than other theories which say very different things?

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:41:13 AM

you don't know that severe storms are caused by extreme differences in temperatures?


but yet, you think you're 100% correct on this topic?

Quote :

"Do you really not understand the difference between predicting a particular day's weather and a long-term worldwide trend?"

Greg Fishel can't predict next weekends weather accurately, but somehow you trust that these scientists and meteorologists are 100% correct and that the earth is def fucked in 50 years

and you people are all like, "the debate is over", I didn't know it was over just because someone declared it was over... I guess that works for some of you people

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

4/9/2007 10:42:56 AM

Sorry, not trying to have a tone. I'm just sick at home today and grumpy I guess.

B/c it makes sense. BTW, I don't believe the poles are getting warm. I'm just going off of the assumptions of the others on the global warming bandwagon.

4/9/2007 10:43:03 AM

^^are you talking about me? because seriously, i don't feel that way. i want to know about things.

also, predicting a trend is much easier than predicting a specific day's weather. it's a very simple concept. i'm not saying that we can do either with 100% accuracy right now, but i'd expect we can do the former before we can do the latter with a reasonable accuracy.

4/9/2007 10:45:48 AM

^do you think its wise to impliment HUGE, DRASTIC cutbacks on energy usage to potentially offset a (natural I say) phenomena by a few tenths of a degree. Thats what would happen of we implemented the Kyoto Protocol. We'd also be at economic disadvantages to developing countries like India and China, who will never agree to it. And we'd be more on a level playing field with Europe. It'd dramatically hurt the quality of life for US citizens, and hurt the poor the most.

All that for predictions based off horribly wrong computer models? No thank you.

4/9/2007 10:51:15 AM

you seem to have already made up your mind.

4/9/2007 10:53:34 AM

yes I have made up my mind that the Kyoto Protocol is a worthless horrible idea, and yes I've made up my mind that we shouldn't make drastic changes in our lives over incorrect future computer models.

But I'm also against pollution and inefficiency. I'm also against hurting our country's economy for nothing.

4/9/2007 10:55:37 AM

what would you suggest?

4/9/2007 10:56:09 AM

Absolutely. For starters we need a lot more nuclear power plants in the US. That could make a huge difference here in the US. The gov't needs to increase minimum fuel mileage requirements on automobiles, SUVs, and trucks. Its a joke right now, and is absolutely shameful that SUVs and minivans aren't classified the same as cars (or at least less like trucks). This country relies too heavily on the trucking industry. The railways are a much more efficient way of transporting goods throughout the country and need to be expanded and upgraded. Public transportation buses, etc. should be required (or subsidized) to run on alternative fuels, or be electric. This works well for them given the way they operate, could also work well for fleet vehicles. More and more taxis in large cities are becoming hybrids, this is a good move and the trend should be encouraged.

Do you think these are good ideas?

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 11:07 AM. Reason : thats off the top of my head]

4/9/2007 11:06:34 AM

all these are ideas i'd be behind. the question is how this would be implemented. federal law? federal incentives? but yeah. those are all reasonable ideas.

4/9/2007 11:09:04 AM

Quote :

"do you think its wise to impliment HUGE, DRASTIC cutbacks on energy usage to potentially offset a (natural I say) phenomena by a few tenths of a degree. Thats what would happen of we implemented the Kyoto Protocol. We'd also be at economic disadvantages to developing countries like India and China, who will never agree to it. And we'd be more on a level playing field with Europe. It'd dramatically hurt the quality of life for US citizens, and hurt the poor the most. All that for predictions based off horribly wrong computer models? No thank you."

That's just fear mongering. None of that would happen if we adopted the kyoto protocol.

4/9/2007 11:15:14 AM

^No it really isn't if we actually had to meet our Kyoto requirements. Something that no country to adopt Kyoto has yet to come close to doing

^^Yeah I mean it'd all be changes in laws and incentives, etc. I'm not afraid of these changes b/c the cost and impact transferred to the average citizen would (I think) not be that bad. If drastic measures such as those Gore wants implimented were put in place it'd hurt everybody but the rich a lot.

BTW, Clinton did sign the Kyoto Protocol so appease some critics. However that doesn't make it law. He had to submit it to the Senate for ratification, something he decided not to do for over 800 days (the remainder of his term as president). I applaud him for that.

[Edited on April 9, 2007 at 11:17 AM. Reason : k ]

4/9/2007 11:16:00 AM

Quote :

" Something that no country to adopt Kyoto has yet to come close to doing"

I take it those countries aren't crumbling to ash as a result of adopting it either, though, right?

4/9/2007 11:24:09 AM

Lets see, their economies are hurting from it, and none of them are close to reaching their Kyoto goals.

4/9/2007 11:25:32 AM

Quote :

"Absolutely. For starters we need a lot more nuclear power plants in the US. That could make a huge difference here in the US. The gov't needs to increase minimum fuel mileage requirements on automobiles, SUVs, and trucks. Its a joke right now, and is absolutely shameful that SUVs and minivans aren't classified the same as cars (or at least less like trucks). This country relies too heavily on the trucking industry. The railways are a much more efficient way of transporting goods throughout the country and need to be expanded and upgraded. Public transportation buses, etc. should be required (or subsidized) to run on alternative fuels, or be electric. This works well for them given the way they operate, could also work well for fleet vehicles. More and more taxis in large cities are becoming hybrids, this is a good move and the trend should be encouraged. Do you think these are good ideas?"

Finally, a dose of fucking sanity...


Global warming (GW) has been a hotly contested theory in its ~20 year existence. I welcome the critics and skeptics in challenging it, because without peer review science is worthless.

I give the benefit of the doubt to GW proponents primarily because of the greenhouse gas emissions generated in the last ~120 years. You can't dump pollution in to the atmosphere and expect things to stay the same. That kind of ignorance has lead to the environmental problems experienced... well... everywhere...

However, there are plenty of reasons to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions with more direct benefits than, say, slowing down global climate change. TKE-Teg already mentioned a few:

1) Increase fuel efficiency standards in cars - reduces smog, reduces dependence on foreign oil, and the market is moving in this direction anyway

2) Incentives for mass/public transportation - reduces traffic congestion, reduces oil consumption

3) Nuclear power - still have to figure out how to handle the waste products, but yeah it's not as bad as public perceptions believes


I'll throw in a few of my own:

1) Eliminate loopholes for avoiding energy efficiency upgrades - The coal-fired power plant industry has used an "improvement project" loophole to expand their capacity without increasing efficiency or adding scrubbers to reduce NOX and SOX emissions. That means bigger, inefficient plants producing more pollution instead of new, more efficient power plants with reduced pollution. These loopholes allow energy companies force their clients to deal with the smog their plants produce. It reduces the quality of life all the way around and it's a shameful example of big-industry lobbying.

2) Increase funding of research on renewable energy sources - It's simply a smart thing to do. It'll increase energy efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign energy (i.e. oil).

3) Increase tax credits on energy efficient products - Things like solar powered street lights, hybrid cars, the hydrogen-powered car, and solar panels should be put back in the spotlight. All of these will steer the market in its current direction, but in a more efficient manner. Oil and coal create political and environmental headaches that don't have a price-tag, but cost us $Texas$ in the long run.


Yeah, GW may be happening. Lets face it though... we've got more than enough incentive to shape up on greenhouse gas emissions as is.

4/9/2007 1:56:09 PM

Quote :

"Yes, the report written and approved by 2500 scientists from 120 nations is wildly biased."

you failed to mention the FACT that the report was EDITED and REVISED by many of those governments prior to its being published. Sure, those governments have nooooo stake in altering the report to benefit them, would they? Noooo, of course not...

Quote :

"When a community this large can put together a cohesive report with the conclusions pointing, generally, in one direction"

It's not hard to get conclusions pointing in one direction when you start with those conclusions to begin with and try to write a report to come to those conclusions...

Quote :

"and civilization would have never started unless we felt like things were stable enough to stay in one place without worrying about conditions changing."

did you really just say that? Sounds to me like YOU are the one who doesnt know anything about the topic at hand...

4/9/2007 9:56:17 PM

lol at posting montly temperatures for the united states in a GLOBAL CLIMATE change discussion. LOfrigginL

^yes without a reliable climate agriculture would have never started. without agriculture man would have continued to live nomadicly chasing animals.

Quote :

"I'm not disputing that the earth is getting warmer. I'm just disputing that humans are the cause of it. "

you had better be considering that is the only part of this discussion even near being debatable.

its funny because i could've sworn you said something about glaciers being created IN THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE


[opinion]Cutting back would be great but its probably too damn late to cutback enough. People simply aren't going to give up their current lifestyle and everybody in china wants to grow up and be just like you. I hate to be a pessimist but we might as well count our losses and prepare for the worst/try to figure out adaptations right now because politics work in four year eternitys.

Bottom line is about a billion people are going to be either displaced by flood/famine or without their current fresh water supply by 2080. All of whom will be poor in poor/developing countries. I know you guys don't like assumptions but based on human history when large groups of people are in a tough time they don't sit around and it never ends pretty.[/opinion]

poltical irony

The developed rich countries make up 4% of the population and have created this problem through industrialization which has provided us the economic power to protect ourselves from the consequences.

The poor developing nations which make up the rest of the population are going to be the ones to suffer without the money to prevent future problems. They want to industrialize to gain economic strength but pressure is now being applied by the rich countries to cut back. hmmm

Quote :

"A warmer climate could prove to be more beneficial than the one we have now. Much of the alarm over climate change is based on ignorance of what is normal for weather and climate."

Could so but a "normal" climate is simply what we knew it was when we decided to build permanant settlements on certain pieces of land.

It could be alot more beneficial once we adapt but the main problem is we can't move countries. Modern society doesn't allow adaptations (whatever they may be) to occur smoothly. "normal" is having rivers flow throuh bangladesh. having rainfall in certain places south of the sahara and several things of that nature many of which have already either ceased or slowed down.


We can't move hundreds of people without causing major problems. This world has had trouble handling several thousand refugees I can't imagine what it would be like if hundreds of millions were displaced.

[Edited on April 10, 2007 at 1:22 AM. Reason : unless the world was under one big communist regime]

o and distillation is funny because it takes so much energy/money to do

[Edited on April 10, 2007 at 1:38 AM. Reason : if they enough energy readily avail they would probably have money as well like sandiego and saudi]

4/10/2007 1:12:13 AM