follow WillPowers following
follow WillPowers 2019 Apr 9, 5:34pm
1,550 views 64 comments
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 64 Last »
But a city like Miami is built on porous ground....there is simply not much you can do. You can elevate a building or a street. But many people will look at this and they will look at the bills, and decide to go live on firmer ground. And once people start leaving, you will have abandoned buildings full of mold, rats and crime, more people will leave. I'm quite certain Miami will be abandoned. A lot of sea front property wealth will rot away.
Only true believers will live in paradise.
they should lobby for nuclear power
In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…CO2 levels were the same then as they are now
You know, it’s strange that this didn’t happen in Venice.
The time it would take for sea level to move that far inland is orders of magnitude slower than the time it takes to build a big city from scratch. You act like Miami will be abandoned in 50 years.
CO2 levels were the same then as they are now
Maybe in 100yrs, or 150yrs. Who cares? And yes they will build new cities from scratch - elsewhere.
Suspicious claims, are these those same scientists that made a debate out of linking tobacco use with cancer and other illnesses, that were extremely well funded by lobbyists for industry?
The entire history of human civilization is based on migration due to climate. The place I was born (Chicago) was under miles of ice less than 10,000 years ago which is a blip in the history of the planet.
We have plenty of time to adapt, outrun or engineer better pumping/drainage systems which seems much more doable than radically changing our entire economies to try and change the planet's climate.
Btw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.
Heraclitusstudent saysBtw if you don't change radically the entire economy, you're not gonna deal with 3 feet of water. More like 20 feet. And then 40 feet: It's not gonna stop until we stop.I don't think we're treating the planet well by any means, but where in the actual fuck does 20-40 feet of water come from? I've never bought this theory. It makes no sense. All the ice on land melting into the sea isn't going to raise sea levels 20 fucking feet. My folks had a property on a barrier island in the panhandle of Florida. Water levels look no different than 30 years ago. A 2-3' difference would wipe this place out. Treat the planet well, but the bill of goods being sold seems like it's shit.
The entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago.
Heraclitusstudent saysThe entire history of the industrial era is based on radically changing our entire economies. Fyi: We were using fucking horses 200yrs ago, and coal 100 yrs ago. Yeah - but the past radical economic/industrial changes were obvious efficiency/cost gains......often at the expense of the environment. Burning the shit out of coal and oil was worse for the environment than using horses. Burning oil and coal allowed the rapid increase, health and longevity of the human population.......which can be seen as an environmental hazard if you think humans are a parasite on earth.
if you think humans are a parasite on earth.
Malthus -> Eugenics -> Zero Population Growth -> Environmentalism
Although the earth can take many more humans than the alarmists will make you believe breeding control isn't always a bad thing but the white western countries
Better be ready with Elon's star-ships.
Now that we know without a shadow of a doubt that China broke the Montreal Treaty and is spewing out CFC-11 like no tomorrow, what happens?Do the UN Police arrest the Chinese Factory owners? Will a bunch of Trans Soldiers in the Landswehr take over Shenzhen Special Admin Region with Merkel footing the bill?
Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.
Honestly, investing $2-3T in living in space would be a better and quicker long term solution than "Carbon Trading" or trying to build tons of windmills.
If you think $2-3 Trillions will buy "life in space" for a billion persons, you're dreaming.
And if you think AGW is tough/expensive to solve on earth, try maintaining balance in an ecosystem on a spaceship.
Going by Germany's failure, spending $3-5T on a massive Moon/Mars colony project over 20 years would offer a huge ROI and safety net, rather than building $100T across the world to raise the renewables a few percentage points. Windmills to Nowhere.
A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. “During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers' theory: "New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'," the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this 'umbrella effect' — an entirely natural occurrence — could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.
I'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!
Ceffer saysI'm so relieved! Guilt free farts again!Not so fast! According to feminists, farting in their presence is a sign of patriarchy and toxic masculinity.
There's radiations, asteroids, the fact that chemical propulsion sucks, is badly limited in range, the lack of gravity can kill people, but gravity pits are hard to escape. Short term it's probably way easier to colonize the ocean.
Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"
Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax
Observation has proven global warming a hoax.
This article is just another step towards better understanding of what the hell is going on. They may be right, they might be wrong.
It is refreshing though that these scientists break with self-censorship and come out against the politically correct dogma.
observation is part of the scientific method, last I checked.
« First « Previous Comments 25 - 64 of 64 Last »