Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why Is Climate Change Such A Bad Thing?
Instead of trying to stop it, which is like trying to stop the tide coming in, why doesn't the human race just adapt to the different weather patterns and climate? I mean the climate is has always changed since the earth was formed and will continue to do so.
Or is it because it's a useful bandwagon to jump on to enable governments to increase taxes and the great unwashed anti-capitalist rabble that like to blame industry for all the ills of the world.
Or is it because it's a useful bandwagon to jump on to enable governments to increase taxes and the great unwashed anti-capitalist rabble that like to blame industry for all the ills of the world.
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Nobody is trying to stop climate change, Dave......slow it if possible but not stop it....that would be impossible.
Climate scientists are well aware that change has always happened and a large part of their work in studying it is to help governments, health authorities etc to prepare for, adapt and cope with these changes.
Climate scientists are well aware that change has always happened and a large part of their work in studying it is to help governments, health authorities etc to prepare for, adapt and cope with these changes.
Funnily enough, the changes that would be necessary to adapt to climate change wouldn't be that different - better insulated buildings, more efficient energy use would be required to deal with extremes of weather.
Of course, dealing with droughts and floods, increased hurricanes, etc. would be considerably more difficult. And there there's the problem of food production in areas where the climate becomes extreme, loss of landmass, etc.
All in all, if you can't get people to adapt their practices to help reduce or prevent climate change, you don't stand a hope in hell of getting them to adapt to its effects.
Of course, dealing with droughts and floods, increased hurricanes, etc. would be considerably more difficult. And there there's the problem of food production in areas where the climate becomes extreme, loss of landmass, etc.
All in all, if you can't get people to adapt their practices to help reduce or prevent climate change, you don't stand a hope in hell of getting them to adapt to its effects.
If you don't prevent global warming, where are you going to rehouse the 100 million people who currently live in the Philippines (which, because all of the islands are so low-lying,face total destruction)? How are you going to rehome all of the people who currently live in much of south-east England, when much of London, and the surrounding area, is lost to flooding? How are you going to deal with the mass famines that will threaten the lives of around two billion people? How are you going to cope with massive health impacts of global warming? (http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/climate-change/climate-change-resources.html ). How are you going to deal with all of the wars that will break out as nations fight to get access to limited supplies of water?
Oh, and while you're sorting all that lot out, please remember than we are just one species on this planet amongst millions of others (none of which are responsible for global warming). At least a third of those other species face being forced into extinction through global warming. ( http://
As you state, our planet has always had a constantly changing climate but species (including man) had hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to cope with each major change. Such evolutionary changes can't come about within the (roughly) 50 year safety zone that we've got left.
Oh, and while you're sorting all that lot out, please remember than we are just one species on this planet amongst millions of others (none of which are responsible for global warming). At least a third of those other species face being forced into extinction through global warming. ( http://
As you state, our planet has always had a constantly changing climate but species (including man) had hundreds of thousands of years of evolution to cope with each major change. Such evolutionary changes can't come about within the (roughly) 50 year safety zone that we've got left.
Damn!
I screwed that first link up. Here it is again:
http://
I screwed that first link up. Here it is again:
http://
Are you sure you’re not confusing the Philippines with the Maldives, ‘Chico?
The Philippines certainly are home to about 100m people but the large islands are mainly mountainous and covered with extensive rain forests. The highest point, Mount Apo, is almost 10,000 feet above sea level. There are numerous lofty volcanoes and agricultural plains many hundreds, sometimes thousands of feet above the sea. It is true the country often suffers floods but this is usually as a result of being hammered by typhoons and tropical storms. Its biggest environmental threats currently are extensive deforestation and threats from volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis.
By contrast the Maldives are all around five or six feet above sea level (I believe their highest point is a lofty eight feet). Furthermore they have a population of only around 300,000, many of whom live on the capital island, Male. The Maldives are certainly susceptible to rising sea levels (though they survived the Boxing Day tsunami with relatively little damage as I can attest, as I was there just a few weeks later) and whilst I imagine some of the coastal areas of the Philippines may be similarly threatened most of the populated areas seem to be safe from a moderate rise.
The Philippines certainly are home to about 100m people but the large islands are mainly mountainous and covered with extensive rain forests. The highest point, Mount Apo, is almost 10,000 feet above sea level. There are numerous lofty volcanoes and agricultural plains many hundreds, sometimes thousands of feet above the sea. It is true the country often suffers floods but this is usually as a result of being hammered by typhoons and tropical storms. Its biggest environmental threats currently are extensive deforestation and threats from volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis.
By contrast the Maldives are all around five or six feet above sea level (I believe their highest point is a lofty eight feet). Furthermore they have a population of only around 300,000, many of whom live on the capital island, Male. The Maldives are certainly susceptible to rising sea levels (though they survived the Boxing Day tsunami with relatively little damage as I can attest, as I was there just a few weeks later) and whilst I imagine some of the coastal areas of the Philippines may be similarly threatened most of the populated areas seem to be safe from a moderate rise.
I never was much good at geography, NJ ;-)
However it remains a fact that many countries around the world (including our own) face the possibility of massive destruction by flooding, often, as in the UK, with some the most populous areas being the worst affected. (Where lower-populated areas might be affected, they're often the ones essential for growing food crops).
However it remains a fact that many countries around the world (including our own) face the possibility of massive destruction by flooding, often, as in the UK, with some the most populous areas being the worst affected. (Where lower-populated areas might be affected, they're often the ones essential for growing food crops).
Lol, right on time; http://
Of course, the 'warmists' will spin this to reinforce their cult. (despite it being the opposite to all their scaremongering)
But they'd still be talking botox when we're 20ft under snow.
Of course, the 'warmists' will spin this to reinforce their cult. (despite it being the opposite to all their scaremongering)
But they'd still be talking botox when we're 20ft under snow.
"you don't stand a hope in hell of getting them to adapt to its effects"
Necessity to cope with something that is here, is a large driver. Tales of doom and destruction tomorrow is not; especially when the whole world needs to do something as unilateral action isn't going to have much effect and the suggested lifestyle changes are going to make life less pleasant. It appears we all have to give up 20th century living and live as non-travelling peasants, and not everyone has room to stable a horse and a cart.
Necessity to cope with something that is here, is a large driver. Tales of doom and destruction tomorrow is not; especially when the whole world needs to do something as unilateral action isn't going to have much effect and the suggested lifestyle changes are going to make life less pleasant. It appears we all have to give up 20th century living and live as non-travelling peasants, and not everyone has room to stable a horse and a cart.
I think two slightly different processes are involved in this phenomenon. One are the side-effects of industrial pollution and over-exploitation of resources. These are disastrous at local levels over a short number of years(on the geological scale). So you could look at Chinese city-smogs curtailing life expectancies, or Himalayan timber harvesting leading to Bangladesh washing away in floods. These are simple, demonstrable cause and effect over shortish periods.
In our country, an example is the wind erosion of soil in the SE, caused by deep ploughing and absence of windbreaks. This isn't just a bit of a problem - it could contribute to famine in the near future.
The other issue is the long geological cycles of climate change, about which we can do (probably) nothing. Even in the very close past, geologically speaking, the climate has been both much much hotter, and unbelievably colder, at different times. It is highly likely that this cycle will continue into the future.
But don't fret, because on the same scale the likelihood of globally-disastrous bolide strikes, and/or super-volcanic eruptions also exist.
In fact it's just like gambling on the horses but far less predictable.
All this carbon-saving wheeler dealing is ... just wheeler-dealing. It seems to affect nothing.
In our country, an example is the wind erosion of soil in the SE, caused by deep ploughing and absence of windbreaks. This isn't just a bit of a problem - it could contribute to famine in the near future.
The other issue is the long geological cycles of climate change, about which we can do (probably) nothing. Even in the very close past, geologically speaking, the climate has been both much much hotter, and unbelievably colder, at different times. It is highly likely that this cycle will continue into the future.
But don't fret, because on the same scale the likelihood of globally-disastrous bolide strikes, and/or super-volcanic eruptions also exist.
In fact it's just like gambling on the horses but far less predictable.
All this carbon-saving wheeler dealing is ... just wheeler-dealing. It seems to affect nothing.
http://
Worth considering. Can any of the alarmist tell me which of the statements, or facts, published in this link is a lie or disproven. I feel that the most shrill advocates of 'man made' climate change have the most to gain from the institutionalisation of the notion.
Worth considering. Can any of the alarmist tell me which of the statements, or facts, published in this link is a lie or disproven. I feel that the most shrill advocates of 'man made' climate change have the most to gain from the institutionalisation of the notion.
Climate change is insignificant compared to the threat from overpopulation which no one is prepared to accept
http://
Will any politician accept that we have to make drastic cuts in our standard of living just to ensure the survival of mankind?
http://
Will any politician accept that we have to make drastic cuts in our standard of living just to ensure the survival of mankind?
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.