Worldwide temperature averages have made measurable increases every month from previous years for years now. We have been in a natural warming cycle since the early 1800's, and the rate of increase has been compounded by human activity, industrialization, exponential rates in increase in burning fossil fuels and number of humans on the planet.
This is how I would describe it.
Climate change is inevitable; the planet is always changing. The questions are how fast, at what magnitude, and what effect do humans have? Man is not causing climate change, but I'm a firm believer that human activity is causing climate change to be more pronounced than ever before. Only someone in denial would look at charts of temperatures and tell me the data is made up (and I've had people say that).
That has always been the case. The thought that mankind would somehow bring climate change under control was the height of arrogance to begin with (actually the whole Global Warming movement was more about obtaining money and power than actually doing anything useful).
You'd think you'd be happy with a new industry supporting jobs in both manufacture and science. I guess jobs are only OK if they don't threaten the status quo.
If the seas rise, move inland.
Kiribati and other Pacific island nations don't have such a thing as "move inland". There's only so much you could do before you become a mini Hong-Kong.
And if the climate does get warmer everywhere, think of all the farmland and resources in Siberia and Northern Canada which become more habitable and usable.
And think about all of the existing farmland elsewhere that will go to waste due to harsher conditions (whether desertification or warmer conditions). Think about how rich Canada and Russia would become by becoming the new breadbaskets of the world and being able to force other nations to bankruptcy with higher food prices.
Oil will no longer be the world's most sought after resource. Oh no. If your nation encircles a body of water and rivers feed it, you'll do everything you can to keep the flow of water moving. If the rivers start within your borders, you're OK. If a river starts elsewhere and meanders through several countries before emptying out to sea or to a lake, expect wars over who controls the water supply.
A small country with a small army but fertile lands would find itself under siege so that the victor gets to control those lands.
Think your water bill is too much? Expect higher bills when desalination plants are built to make up for lost groundwater. And that's only if your state/country is willing/able to build them.
Bet you didn't think of that, did you? The argument sounds a lot like Gary Johnson's argument
(paraphrased): "we're gonna die anyway so why bother?"
I will agree that the term has been sensationalized and that it's too early to know if the effects will be as dire as people claim. But I would much rather not take the risk.
To put it bluntly, here's an analogy: if you move to Oklahoma, you know you're prone to a tornado destroying your home. It doesn't mean you WILL see one, but chances are higher. The doomsday scenarios are all concurrent: strong winds, severe thunderstorms, hail, etc. That may be all that happens: all bark and no bite. But you may also find that a tornado can form and head your way. It may be an EF0 tornado with a few roof shingles loose or an EF5 with nothing but the foundation remaining. Because of the uncertainty, wouldn't you take steps to insure your house against potential damages? Hint: I'm not gonna believe that you'll take the defeatist attitude of "well, I'm gonna die anyway" or "well, a natural disaster is inevitable anyway" to not insure against losses.
Last edited by einsteinboricua
on Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.