Global Warming and Gnomes
Since the election is over and the new Emperor has been crowned I can now focus my energies back onto a personal favorite topic. Gnomes! and Global Warming.
Did you know that October was the hottest on record this year? Uhh, well not really unless you think September is also October…you would if you work for GISS.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/16/hottest-october-on-record-was-really-a-september/
Also I know some of my associates will try and barage me with “scientitfically accurate websites that explain the molecular basis for the research blah blah blah.” I want YOUR explanaition and intreptation of the data AND oberservational data from the world around you.
I think it is too easy to simply say “100% of scientists agree that this issue is beyond debate”….since when did science become so willing to exclude data? Unwillingness to take in new data and allow people to question the established theories is just plain facist. I don’t claim to know that Global Warming is false, I simply don’t believe we know enough about the planet to be able to make such assumptions. I also think we should look at everything. Below is a list of issue and questions that as of yet haven’t been explained to any great degree.
1) The models that are used exclude complex data variables (ie. water vapor in the atmosphere) Water vapor can have a huge cooling effect on temps.
2) The Co2 spike in Al Gore’s magic chart doesn’t lead the temperature increase…it follows it. IF Co2 does = Warming then why doesn’t the data back this up?
3) Why is antartic ice melting from one side of the frozen continent but increasing on the other?
4) Why do we care if Antartica melts? It was ONCE not frozen and was an actual continent.
5) The polar bears on the one TV commerical about climate change aren’t drowning…the mother PB is also NOT leaving the cub to fend for itself..they swim in the artic water to get from one place to the next so that they can eat baby seals.
6) Why have scientists (or so called) become so militant in thier attitudes?
7) Just because you have a phd doesn’t mean your a genius…just because you have a high IQ doesn’t mean your still not a dumb ass.
There are more but I’m going to end it there.
Gnomes & Global Warming are a lot alike…I can’t prove or disprove the existence of either.
-Corey
“Figures never lie, liars never figure”
So it’s late and I’m really too tired to argue all of these points, but I do want to point out a couple of things. First off, just because a data set is wrong doesn’t mean EVERY data set used in the scientific studies of global climate change are wrong. It seems as if you’re trying to say that since this one particular data set is skewed that all of them are. I’m sure that skeptics would have picked up on any others just like they picked up on this one. Secondly, just because you have a Ph.D. or a high IQ also doesn’t mean that you ARE a dumb ass or are NOT a genius. It goes both ways. Finally, you made the comment “I want YOUR explanation and intreptation of the data AND oberservational data from the world around you”…since when did every person on the planet become qualified to give accurate interpretations of scientific data? Here’s a good comparison to this kind of idea: Recently, I found that something was physically not quite right with me (please keep the smart-ass comments to yourselves, people). I researched some ideas of what it might be, as did my husband. We are both well-educated and had different ideas of what it might be. After a week of worrying I went to a doctor who diagnosed me with something completely different (turns out I’m fine, in case you’re wondering). Should I believe the doctor, or go with my own thoughts, since I’m such an expert in the medical field? I hope you get my point. I’m not saying we shouldn’t think for ourselves, I just don’t want people to start assuming that they know as much about a topic as any person with a doctorate behind their name. That’s just plain silly.
Comment by Amanda — November 18, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
First off, ONE data set hasn’t been wrong. This is only the most recent. Since this one can be seen as incorrect this does make it possible that OTHERS are also incorrect, flawed, or forged. Being skeptical is only natural when people seem to follow things like lemmings. I find it interesting that your assume that I am calling all Phd’s and geniuses dumb asses, on the contrary BUT that doesn’t preclude them from this either. A degree is just that, you spent some time to study one specialty. I’ve found in my experience that this can create tunnel vision in people and they become blind to the reality around them.
I think that I’m very qualified to look outside and take note of the temperature, to look at the trends as they’ve been reported for however long I want (since about the 70’s accuratly anyway). To say otherwise just proves my original point about the hubris of people in this industry.
If more people would look at the data I think they would see what I’m talking about. This is a problem for those scientists and politicians who need this issue to continue for thier own purposes.
On the issue of your medical analogy, you did exactly what should be done. You observed the data (yourself & symptons), took in varying view points (Scott) and came to an observational conclusion. You then took your conclusion to a more qualified person than yourself for validation. Turs out, your observations where correct, but they lead you to the wrong conclusion. This happens a lot in medicine & other fields everyday. However, don’t assume that you are wrong if symptons persist. Doctors can make mistakes and can only diagnose based on symptons and likely causes. Would you not continue to question the diagnosis if your symptons got worse or changed? Under your thought process it seems you would only put your faith in the Doctor and end it there regardless of what the symptons indicate.
My observation is this, people who believe in Global Warming tend to be more sad zachs. They see the glass half empty, thier lives unfullfilled and great angst in the world. I’ll take a guess here and say you probably thought there was something more seriously wrong with you than there was. Going to the worse case is natural and theres nothing wrong with that, but living ones life in that kind of world is not healthy (mentally or physically).
I see scientists taking in data (some are actually going out and taking thier own obersevational data and kudos to them, others are just recycling the same data sets like a cheap whore).
Your right, we should assume that someone with a Phd or other marker of specialty knowledge does know a bit more about a specific topic. We should also be warry of automatically believing everything that say.
Here is an example of what I think is happening; Scientist Bob is a climatologist. He studies weather and all that environmental variable stuff. He comes out and says “Global Warming is going to kill us all if we don’t act now! Higher sea levels, more deserts, no ice caps”…..fast forward 20 years and the world is in a wreck, higher sea levels, more deserts, no ice caps….Bob was right.
Lets go back and do that again, this time we fast forward 20 years and things aren’t all that different, maybe some minor changes but nothing any sane person would call dramatic. Bob stands up and proclaims “We were close, but we stopped Global Warming just in time”
Either way Scientist Bob gets to be right. The pro-Global Warming camp gets to have thier cake and eat it too.
The reason I want your interpretation and data is to show that reality isn’t matching the models or data sets. I’m not the first person to try this, in fact it is a growing trend. I’ve said this before, and I will state it again. Global Warming COULD be real. If it is real, the worse case scenario is pretty bleak. I don’t think we know enough about the planet and the environment to make such rash assumptions. I also think the system of scientists currently working this theory have way to much of a personal investment in it. They take any critisism of thier work personally and attack anyone who goes against them. Your guilty of this as well, I’ve posted counter arguments in the past, and the first thing you do is find something to discredit the source instead of analying the source material and take it for what it is, more data for a very complex problem. The data may be incorrect, but it is worth noting and discounting in a scientific manner.
Just don’t tell me the problem is real, show me. You saw my checklist above, I think these are legitimate issues that need to be looked at.
-Corey
Comment by Corey — November 19, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I didn’t mean to indicate that you were incapable of looking at temperature data, what I did mean to indicate is that there’s a lot more to climate and its shifting state than just a few sets of temperature data. To take the time to look at ALL of the data requires time that most people just don’t have…unless they are paid to do so. I’m not saying we should blindly believe whatever we’re told (for instance, I will go back to the doctor if I keep having symptoms because I am not a drooling idiot), but we do have experts for a reason. Financial advisors, doctors, professors, teachers, etc., etc. All of these people are experts in a field and they help us make decisions and learn about topics that we are not experts in. Sometimes I wonder why I keep on arguing, but it’s my own fault for responding I suppose…it keeps me on my toes at the very least and lets me exercise my brain beyond the 8th grade science realm .
Anyway, as for your various points that you wanted a response to (without tearing apart the sources, though I still think that it’s always a good idea to point out obvious bias…in both directions):
1) The models that are used exclude complex data variables (ie. water vapor in the atmosphere) Water vapor can have a huge cooling effect on temps.
Okay, to begin with, water vapor might have a cooling effect when you talk about clouds and cloud formation and albedo and so on and so on… the debate’s still going on about this because it’s such a complex system. However, to avoid looking totally biased, I researched clouds and their effect on global temperatures and honestly, I haven’t made up my mind. Maybe leaving clouds out of the models does cause an exaggerated warming trend (there’s an abstract here that studied this very possibility: http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/ICESM2007/00045/ICESM2007-J-00045-1.pdf). Then again, maybe they don’t have as large as an effect as we think since they are increasing due to particles from pollution (there’s an article here that addresses this: http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index_e.aspx?id=5734). The point is even the experts don’t know and I’m sure not going to be able to figure it out in all my free time. However, what IS known is that water vapor as a whole in the atmosphere is actually the most important greenhouse gas (haven’t you pointed this very fact out to me before?). In fact, the most recent studies suggest that water vapor is playing a positive feedback role in warming the climate (see an article on this topic here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm). Yes, water vapor is neglected in the climate models (haven’t we been down this road before? It seems so familiar). However, the SAME climate models that have accurately portrayed changes in Earth’s climate in the past are ones that are being used to predict future changes. Therefore, I think that it is likely that they are accurate in the trends that they predict for the future, even if the exact numbers may be slightly off. The same “errors” would occur in both the past and the future, but the trends (warming or cooling) that they show would be accurate.
2) The Co2 spike in Al Gore’s magic chart doesn’t lead the temperature increase…it follows it. IF Co2 does = Warming then why doesn’t the data back this up?
Again, a complex system that even the Ph.D.s can’t figure completely out quite yet. And, in fact, Gore even points out on his “magic chart” that CO2 follows the warming trend and not vice versa. However, the very important point is that they always change together. Therefore, if one drops, the other drops, if one rises, the other rises. Obviously, we’re pumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and that is most likely going to lead to increased temperatures. Greenhouse gases are a biogeochemical feedback. They have always lagged temperature a little because it is not just greenhouse gases that have ever caused climate to change. Instead, it is a mixture of many things together (over geological timescales, warming typically begins due to Milankovitch cycles, which is why warming occurs first in the Southern Hemisphere). What we do know is that GGs amplify warming once it is underway. Also, it is important to note that on historical timescales, CO2 has actually led temperature change, not the other way around.
3) Why is antartic ice melting from one side of the frozen continent but increasing on the other?
It’s actually not surprising that Antarctica is a bit of an anomaly. Antarctic ice is melting along the peninsula where there is a lot of warming. This is most likely due to the fact that the peninsula is more susceptible to changes in global temperatures since it was actually floating on a warming ocean (I do not have a source for this, just an educated guess). However, most warming occurs in the northern hemisphere, where landmasses are most prevalent. The ocean is able to absorb more heat than land and has a delayed temperature signal, whereas land will reflect it back as surface temperature changes rather quickly. Also, Antarctica won’t warm as quickly as other areas because the circumpolar current acts as a buffer to warmer ocean currents (though it’s now known that even the Antarctic Circumpolar Current is warming…who knows what that implies for the future of Antarctic temperatures?). Not to mention this small fact: warming oceans will cause increased precipitation, especially around a cold continent…ergo, more snow on Antarctica.
4) Why do we care if Antartica melts? It was ONCE not frozen and was an actual continent.
It still is an actual continent, but last time it wasn’t frozen, it was during the Eocene from everything I’ve read. At that time, Antarctica was connected to Australia and it was the warmest time of the entire Cenozoic. And we care because if the ice on top of it now should melt, it would cause a significant rise in global sea levels and displace millions of people from their homes and disrupt food production and transport.
5) The polar bears on the one TV commerical about climate change aren’t drowning…the mother PB is also NOT leaving the cub to fend for itself..they swim in the artic water to get from one place to the next so that they can eat baby seals.
I won’t proclaim to know what is actually happening in the commercial, whether the bears will drown or not, though likely not. I think the commercial is just implying that as Arctic ice recedes, the bears will have to swim farther and farther to find their beloved baby seals to eat. And, polar bears actually can not swim forever, so they could theoretically drown, though perhaps starvation is more likely.
6) Why have scientists (or so called) become so militant in thier attitudes?
Because they can…what kind of a question is that?!? Do you want me to argue why they feel so strongly about their research? I think I’ve covered this one before, so I’m just going to skip it because this is a question based on your opinion and not one I can back up with facts, therefore an unwinnable argument. I won’t waste my time.
7) Just because you have a phd doesn’t mean your a genius…just because you have a high IQ doesn’t mean your still not a dumb ass.
Covered this one. I do wonder what made you so bitter against Ph.D.s and people with high IQs, though I do agree with your assessment. I’ve known a number of Ph.D.s who were dumb, though not many of those had a doctorate in a science. Usually, the Ph.D.s that I had trouble with weren’t stupid, they were just arrogant assholes. But they did know their stuff.
Finally, as for your comment that “Gnomes & Global Warming are a lot alike…I can’t prove or disprove the existence of either”, may I just ask then why you feel the need to constantly argue about global warming and whether or not it’s occurring? Aren’t there other issues that you actually care about that you could tear apart or argue for? And besides, there’s plenty of evidence for global warming, not so much for gnomes.
Okay, I’m drained and I’m done. How’s the impending fatherhood thing going?
Comment by Amanda — November 19, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
Just want to clarify…in re-reading my post I realized that some people might think that I was insinuating somehow that you don’t have a high IQ. That was never my intent and I want to make sure that I don’t come across as insulting. I was just saying that it seems as if you have some bitter attitudes towards others with high IQs, not that you yourself are not included in that category.
Comment by Amanda — November 19, 2008 @ 5:39 pm
Nope, I didn’t take it that way. I think my point was clarified in my response about the “ohh learn-ed ones”. People need to be carefull not to assume that anyone with a higher degree in anything is any smarter a person or capable human being automatically. This could be the case, but let reason an experience guide your judgements.
Comment by Corey — November 19, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Ok, you addressed some of the issues and I agree with some of what your saying (although I’d shy away from the financial advisor comparison if I were you!?!?!?!?!) Anyway I agree with your assesment of #1, and I think that in itself shows you my entire reason for questioning the whole global warming theory (Mind you, I’m not arguing that the planet isn’t warming, or that it won’t/can’t, just the modern theory that we are completly to blame). We don’t know enough about a very complex system to be able to generate with overwhelming certainty a model for what WILL happen, only likely scenarios based off data recieved at the time. Again, with many issue I argue besides global warming, its not the so much the issue, but how its being portrayed and sold to the global audience.
#2 seems to enforce #1 (in regards to lacking a complete understanding, and yes Al does admit this, but you never see that on the propaganda peices that are always in the news). You do say that Co2 does lead temp increases in the historic record? Since as far as I know we’ve only been tracking Co2 since the very early 1900’s we’re working off a very limited timescale in comparison to the more lengthy scales revealed in the ice cores. I’m just pointing out that in 108 years (thats a long estimation I think) we are seeing a very small portion of the big picture…can ber very easy to think we see something that is nothing more than a natural variance. Yes, industry does produce Green house gases, but Co2 levels are at thier lowest since before the industrial revolution (the growth of China and India may change this in the comming decades, but only time will tell on that one).
#3 I put that one on there to see if anyone would bite, I think your right when it comes to what is happening down there. The part of Antartica that is melting ISN’T land based, its just ice. I would also think that being as there is land under all the mainland ice that it is helping to melt some as well (heat transfer and what not). I do find it funny that Global Warming is in fact capable of creating cooling temps and snow in some regions…perhaps that is why I’m hearing a lot more about “Climate Shifting” in the media….
#4 Yes, again refer to #3, although if it did melt and we could move the fraking thing into the center of the atlantic…more land just became available! (8-)
#5 Bingo, I just hate that commericial.
#6 Perhaps it is a question based on my opinion so I will rephrase to better get at my point. Why have some scientific groups deemed it nessecary to take a more totalitarian approach to the solutions/preventions of Global Warming? Because they can is no answer worthy of this global debate (not our debate mind you, I mean the larger one as a whole) But if I get you to waste your time then thats 1 less minute you have to save the planet! (8-)
#7 Refer to an ealier post on the education thing. a doctor kicked me once.
I have many issue I can argue, politics, policy, economics, theology, communication law. I picked GW recently because its an issue that not everyone agrees on and is worth hashing out. I wouldn’t try and argue the merrits of life versus death because well, most people would argue life is preferable to death (unless your an Emo I guess). Don’t fear, as soon as the emperor starts to mess things up, I’ll be there to debate and argue.
Comment by Corey — November 20, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Corey,
I question if there is any value in debating if global warming exists or not. There are only zealots on the side for, not a panel of climatologist simply presenting facts.
I find the better tact to be to argue what should be done if the worst case is true. I find this to be more revealing of people because the only solutions appear to involve force. I also find it more interesting because it involves so much misunderstanding of humanity.
Our CO2 production levels emerged from our free actions and they will fall the same way.
Comment by Jacob Tomaw — November 21, 2008 @ 10:53 pm
I’m glad you bring this point up. Amanda and I went into that area once but all I managed to do was piss her off by calling her a communist…perhaps a revision of my arguments would be in order.
I’ve never doubted the climate is changing, I just have a beef with how (no pun intended) it was happening.
I too would argue that artifically forcing our economy into a “green revolution” when its not ready is going to be disasterous. The market will choose the time and place for these new developments. No amount of government force can substitute this.
A recent example is Emperor Obama’s statements to the effect of taxing coal plants out of existance and “using this economic downturn as a opportunity to make a lot of changes”
Ohh well we survived FDR…we’ll survive BHO…I hope.
Comment by Corey — November 23, 2008 @ 12:29 am
It is interesting how offended people get when you call them a communist, whether that be accurate or not.
Once people start embracing their beliefs and abandon silly designations like ‘moderate’ we can start to have a meaningful discussion.
Comment by Jacob Tomaw — November 23, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
That would require people to be truthfull with thier intents. My observation is that environmentalists are too busy self-loathing to worry about this.
Comment by Corey — November 25, 2008 @ 10:41 am
You know, I started listing all the rational, scientific arguments as I always do…and then deleted all of it. All I have to say is this: you two are allowed to believe whatever you want. It doesn’t mean you’re right and it also doesn’t mean that everyone who disagrees with you is a “zealot” or a “communist”. I just wish that you would give both sides a fair chance at swaying your opinion instead of just sticking with your anti-environmentalist desires. It’s obvious that you will try to argue with anything that I say whether there is a rational, scientific argument against it or not. My viewpoint is one that includes a world-view; yours is not. Therefore, we will most likely never agree what’s occurring and what’s best for us as a species because you can’t seem to see beyond yourselves and your immediate surroundings. This doesn’t make me a “self-loather”, it just means I care for others and not just myself and my family. If this makes me a communist, so be it. If it makes me a zealot, so be it. What I know it makes me is a caring, concerned person who’s trying to make the world a little bit better for everyone - myself and my family included.
Comment by Amanda — December 18, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
I am quite offended that you do not see a viewpoint based on not aggressing against others as not caring about others. My worldview also includes the humbling admission that I do not know what is best for everyone.
However like you point out, everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what is best. So, I have an honest question. I am not trying to trap you so I can call you a communist.
I am not sure I know what you think “is best for us as a species” when it comes to climate change. Can you tell me what that course is and why that course is better than doing nothing?
Comment by Jacob Tomaw — December 21, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
I do allow both sides an opportunity to sway me. I agree with some environmental things when they make economic and social sense.
I don’t think it is correct to assume that your view is one that is a “world view” and mine is somehow limited. I frankly care less about the world outside of this country. Those places you worry about (the island folk and other 3rd world nations) have never amounted to anything and likely never will for very basic socialogical reasons. A loss of them makes no real difference to me because I do not look upon the world and make decisions based on emotion. There is no emotion, only peace.
When decisions are made that can impact millions and possibly billions we need to rise above the immediate desire to allow emotions to guide us. We must rely on logic and sense.
I agree with Jake that I don’t know what is best for anyone…I can hardly determine what’s best for myself.
I get worked up on this issue not so much over the science, but over the rash decision making that seems to come from Environmentalists. The audacity of certainty and no regard for anyone else’s “world views”. The problem is, as I see it, you’re not the problem. You do try to do what is right and make reasonable decisions BUT there are far more wackos in your camp than I think you are willing to admit. It is those people who are communists. I say this only because many noted Enviro’s have been quoted saying that personal liberty is one of the greatest hindrances to enacting necessary environmental rules. They see freedom of choice (be it in light bulbs, cars, or fuels) as a bad thing. They feel that since they know what is best, we cannot be allowed to make these decisions on our own and they must be made for us.
This is the problem with calling yourself an environmentalist…you are in bed with a lot of dangerous people. Sometimes when people feel so passionately about something (which I believe you do) they can become blinded to the harsh reality of the world around them.
I respect your decisions you have made that you “feel” are making a difference (ie, not eating Cows), even if I may mock you it does take great resolve to commit to something like that. While you don’t try to impose your anti-cow movement on to me, there are those in your camp that would.
Comment by Corey — December 22, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
I would like to clarify that Corey and I differ in one important way. I care equally for Americans and non-Americans. God challenges me to see all people as my neighbors. (I will leave it to the reader to determine if I hold my neighbors in high regard.)
However, the sad reality is that people, in aggregate, will die no matter what is done. There are always trade-offs. What I am asking above is how you value those trade-offs. Do we want to limit the number of people who die. The number of strong people, or smart people, or rich people? Perhaps like during deer season, we want to protect females so they can reproduce. Perhaps we want to protect Europeans in general because they have a culture that is dieing out. Maybe it is the people whose death would be the largest population change for their culture.
I have framed this as human lives but the same is true for plants and animals. We cannot simple save the “insert species or land formation here”. There are trade-offs, someone or something will die. Let’s be honest as say who is ok to die.
Thankfully tonight a couple thousand years ago someone was born in order to die and set it all right.
Comment by Jacob Tomaw — December 24, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
In response to Jake…let me first say that I apologize for lumping you in with Corey as someone who does not take a “world view”; I suppose he and I have been going back and forth for so long that I tend to address him moreso than others, so my apologies for that :-). As to what I think is “best for us as a species” - I don’t proclaim to know the perfect solution, nor do I claim to know what is best for everyone. However, I don’t understand the hesitation of people who could do so much by changing little aspects of their life. I haven’t made any great sacrifices in my life, though there are times that I crave Steak n Shake Chili, which I can’t eat because of my beef issues. Yet, the little things that I have done would make a tremendous impact if EVERYONE would also make those changes. If everyone drove less, ate less meat, and saved energy however possible in their own homes, then it would be a huge lessening of our impact on the world. Even if you don’t believe in global warming (I won’t start that particular argument here), what could it possibly hurt to lessen your personal use of the Earth’s resources? That can’t hurt any species - and I do care for ALL of Earth’s creatures, but I try to refrain from spouting about saving the whales since I get enough flack just for trying to convince people to lessen their carbon footprint :-). I do understand that some people will die no matter what we do - but why do nothing and risk the possibility that the worst case scenario is going to happen, causing even more famine from droughts in some areas, floods in others, and a sad loss of human life due to extremes in every sense of the word?!? We will lose precious land, causing overpopulation in surrounding areas, food shortages, water shortages, etc. I don’t think it’s for me to choose who lives and who dies…but that is what I would be doing if I sat here and did nothing to lessen my contribution to the possible catastrophes ahead. It is a death sentence for many who are less fortunate than me. I know that I’m passionate about this, and I feel completely justified in my passion. Yes, I know there are zealots in my camp - but there are zealots on the other side as well. Just because my side has long been viewed as a bunch of crazy tree huggers does not lessen my argument. There are extremists in every kind of thinking, that doesn’t mean that they are completely wrong in their fundamental beliefs.
Comment by Amanda — January 2, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
I think it is great that you are acting to use resources as you see fit. However, I cannot endorse a policy that forces others to use resources as you see fit. In fact my principles require me to oppose it. Force is simple amoral.
As for picking. You are ignoring those who will die from cold because the planet will not warm. Also, while those in equatorial and coastal areas will be effected most negatively, those in interior temperate areas will flourish.
If we want to help people with drought and flood, why not help them instead of placing all our eggs in a contentions basket like CO2 emissions?
Comment by Jacob Tomaw — January 4, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
I have never said that I endorsed a policy where people were forced to use resources a particular way, though I am not sure that I am completely opposed to it, either. I simply can’t understand why people would NOT hold themselves accountable for using resources wisely. The practice of using until there’s nothing left to use is, by it’s own description, simply impossible for the long-term. Personal responsibility on everyone’s part would be nice - that’s what I would like to see happen. Force is amoral in some senses, but aren’t we “forced” to follow all the laws of the land? Kind of the same concept, it would just be a new area that is under law…again, not saying I’m for it, I’m just making a point.
As for your statement that I am ignoring those who will die from cold because the planet will not warm…as stated before, people are always going to die, it’s the NUMBER of people that suffer that can be affected. Yes, people in interior areas might flourish, but is that worth the many, many people who live in the equatorial and coastal areas being run out of their homes? Those who are displaced from their homes will put a strain on those who live in the interior…so it’s really not much of a bonus for those of us “lucky” ones because there will be less land to produce food and therefore less food to go around. Not to mention the possibility of droughts and floods increasing around the world. Yes, let’s help the victims of droughts and floods, but let’s go ahead and place some of our eggs in that “basket”. MUCH better safe than sorry.
Comment by Amanda — January 9, 2009 @ 4:53 pm