Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

    There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.
  • Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

    Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

    China 8.2
    India 2.1
    USA 5.5
    Rest of World 17.7
    Total 33.5

    Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

    China 15
    India 8
    Rest of the world: ?
    USA: ?
    Total: Between 40 and 50

    Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

    Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

    Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

    And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

    China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as much CO2 as the States. Imagine how dire the numbers will be when they reach the USA's level of emissions per person.

    As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.

    Also, since that will probably not happen, mankind being what it is - better at reaction than preparation, and since those two countries will probably realistically continue to increase emissions rapidly for years, maybe decades, I advise all of you to seek high ground in cold climates. The hills overlooking cold coastal cities will not only provide sanctuary from rising ocean levels, but are probably good candidates for increased property values as they get ever closer to becoming beachfront properties in warmer climes.

    Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!
  • Thomas Malthus told me this will all work itself out in the end....one way or the other
  • The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.
  • gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

    There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.


    Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.
  • tomasso: Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!


    Depiction of the carnage: Link
  • I dont know, the fact that our drought conditions are the worst in 50 WHOLE years means that there were even worse droughts prior to that...

    Meh...
  • tomasso: Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

    Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

    China 8.2
    India 2.1
    USA 5.5
    Rest of World 17.7
    Total 33.5

    Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

    China 15
    India 8
    Rest of the world: ?
    USA: ?
    Total: Between 40 and 50

    Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

    Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

    Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

    And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

    China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as much CO2 as the States. Imagine how dire the numbers will be when they reach the USA's level of emissions per person.

    As I see it, there is only one way to get CO2 emissions under control. The world needs to get China and India some ultra-clean technology and/or energy sources, and fast. (And retrofit that same technology elsewhere, of course.) Otherwise, assuming that climate change is real and anthropogenic, and that CO2 is the key factor, we are all screwed, and it's gonna get a lot hotter.

    Also, since that will probably not happen, mankind being what it is - better at reaction than preparation, and since those two countries will probably realistically continue to increase emissions rapidly for years, maybe decades, I advise all of you to seek high ground in cold climates. The hills overlooking cold coastal cities will not only provide sanctuary from rising ocean levels, but are probably good candidates for increased property values as they get ever closer to becoming beachfront properties in warmer climes.

    Oslo: the Miami Beach of the future!


    lol
  • The World Bank is being unknowingly conservative in its estimate of temperature rise. To date, the more extreme climate models have been the most accurate. A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.

    This is why I'm no longer an environmentalist; the game is lost.
  • Wadded Beef: The earth will be just fine. It's we who are screwed.


    In the future, historians will point to Dec. 21, 2012 as the last effective date for reducing the impact from emissions.

    /Mayans ftw
    //I hope reincarnation isn't real.
  • Dirt nap here we come.
  • Gonad the Ballbarian
    I dont know, the fact that our drought conditions are the worst in 50 WHOLE years means that there were even worse droughts prior to that...


    Or that there's no reliable or comparable data.

    50 years ago sounds about right for the start of monitoring things by (weather) satellite.
  • Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.
  • tomasso: Here's something scarier: it is going to get much, much worse, and there is no solution in the pipeline:

    Here are the CO2 emissions today (actually 2010) in giga tons:

    China 8.2
    India 2.1
    USA 5.5
    Rest of World 17.7
    Total 33.5

    Here are the likely numbers for 2030 with no changes in policy or technology:

    China 15
    India 8
    Rest of the world: ?
    USA: ?
    Total: Between 40 and 50

    Assuming ZERO growth from any other country but China and India, the world total would be 46.2 in 2030, which would represent an increase of a bit less than 40% over 2010.

    Let's assume that global climate change is real and anthropogenic. My fellow conservatives: stay with me on this one for now, OK, and let us assume that liberals are right about the fact of climate change and its causes. Don't concede it if you doubt it, but assume it for the purpose of strategizing.

    Now that we have assumed that, how could we fix it? See what I'm driving at here? The liberals may be right about the problems, but not necessarily about the solutions. America should not be taking significant measures that would hurt its own economy, because the USA is virtually irrelevant to the future scenarios. If everyone in the USA gives up all technology and lives in trees, or in caves without fires, the world total will still be about 20% more than today by 2030.

    And we are pretty much in agreement that today's total is already too high.

    China and India are not likely to agree to restrictions on their industrial and economic development, and with good reason. Why would they deny themselves the growth that other nations have already experienced? They have as much right to economic development as every other country. It's not just that these countries are industrializing, but also the hard mathematical reality that they have two and a half billion people between them, something like eight times the population of the USA. It should not be surprising, then, that by 2030 they will between them emit four to five times as mu ...


    i.imgur.comView Full Size
  • This really helps to put the whole Twinkies / Angus thing into perspective.
  • acohn: A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.


    dammitall

    See, this is why the Left can't get any respect. Because some of us are as farking dumb and deceitful as the conservatives.

    We aren't getting 5-8 degrees by 2100. Worst case is around 3, which is going to suck in many place. Talking crap like ending civilization and destroying all complex life is flat out retarded. 100MM years ago we had temperatures that high and CO2 levels even higher. These changes will drastically impact our lives, but carrying on like it is the end of the world is just not happening.
  • Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.


    And we've suffered great human casualties and technological setbacks because of them.
  • cdn.theatlantic.comView Full Size
     

    And that's just in Detroit
  • gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

    There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.


    There's stupid, and there's wingnut, climate-change denier stupid.

    In case you weren't aware, the Pentagon's internal analysis suggests climate-change is going to cause wars, yes, including civil-wars.

    /Head in the sand is no way to go through life son
  • As usual, the one thing they don't mention is overpopulation, now more than three times the sustainable level. Looks like there will have to be a huge die-off of humans, but of course Pat Robertson will blame it on homosexuals.
  • fusillade762: gerrymander: FTA: 5. Civil wars on the rise

    There's stupid, and then there's 'global warming advocate' stupid.

    Yeah, no way people will start fighting each other when they run out of water.


    Quick question: since the Arab Spring is one major driver of this the recent rise in this index, in how many Arab Spring-related conflict states has "lack of water" been identified as an underlying cause for the riots, etc.?

    Just because something would cause unrest doesn't mean it has

    /You know what else will cause riots?
    //Aliens.
    ///I'm not saying it was aliens, but...
  • Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: Bottom line is that we survived drastic climate change in the past, and we'll survive it in the future.


    How many major cities were located at sea level in 12,000 BC?
  • acohn: The World Bank is being unknowingly conservative in its estimate of temperature rise. To date, the more extreme climate models have been the most accurate. A temperature rise of 5-8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 predicted by these models, plus a rise in CO2 to at least 430 PPM (likely with the increasing economic activity in India and China) spells the end, not only of civilizations, but of all current life on the planet more complex than anaerobic bacteria.

    This is why I'm no longer an environmentalist; the game is lost.


    The 'sixth extinction', so to speak.

    (Yes, I have been watching the X-files way too much, why do you ask?)
  • i hope somebody gets a pay raise before all this happens.
  • Load 25 of 112 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.