CDZ Those who believe in man made global warming...what will you actually do?

[2aguy]

I don't believe in man made global warming....I believe in climate change....and also...weather. I ask here what are you willing to do in response to man made global warming.....if you actually believe it is happening....

Here is a video by Prager University that takes on the issue of what will you do.....



Now......I will go along with your beliefs on man made global warming....and offer this solution...


To prepare for man made global warming....and the rise in ocean levels you claim will happen...

--All migration to coastal States will end. There will be no more people allowed to move to coastal States going forward.

--All inhabitants of coastal states, will have 5 years to move out of the Global Warming affected areas...after that point, if they refuse to move, the Federal Government will use Eminent Domain to seize the affected land and properties....in order to safe guard human life.

--No more development of coastal states will be allowed to happen......they will become global warming safety zones for the United States.

That is what I will sign on for if you guys are serious in your beliefs....because if it is as dire as you say....how can we do any less....?

 

[FA_Q2]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

 

[Wuwei]

Climate change problems are complicated by where the region is. A Pacific island may be in dire straits for everyone. However in the US a lot of the areas of rising oceans will affect the richer folks who can afford beach or ocean front property. I live in Florida 28 feet above sea level. Developers here continue to build expensive high-rise condos near prime water-front real estate. Flood insurance is exorbitantly expensive. We probably shouldn't take pity on those more well-off who prefer to take their chances. They would have plenty of time time to walk away from their investment.

Your idea to give a deadline of 5 years to vacate coastal areas is unduly harsh. Nothing dire will happen during that time. The idea of curtailing development or higher real estate taxes on the most endangered areas might be more politically viable. As far as slightly more inland residential areas, development should be curtailed if a new house or apartment is projected to be in danger within 50 years.

At the current rate of ocean rise, there is no need to panic. It seems you are exaggerating for rhetorical purposes what you seem to feel is panic on those more concerned with global warming. I believe AGW is a concern, but I don't know how much of a concern it should be. Others may have a different opinion.

 

[FA_Q2]

Climate change problems are complicated by where the region is. A Pacific island may be in dire straits for everyone. However in the US a lot of the areas of rising oceans will affect the richer folks who can afford beach or ocean front property. I live in Florida 28 feet above sea level. Developers here continue to build expensive high-rise condos near prime water-front real estate. Flood insurance is exorbitantly expensive. We probably shouldn't take pity on those more well-off who prefer to take their chances. They would have plenty of time time to walk away from their investment.

Your idea to give a deadline of 5 years to vacate coastal areas is unduly harsh. Nothing dire will happen during that time. The idea of curtailing development or higher real estate taxes on the most endangered areas might be more politically viable. As far as slightly more inland residential areas, development should be curtailed if a new house or apartment is projected to be in danger within 50 years.

At the current rate of ocean rise, there is no need to panic. It seems you are exaggerating for rhetorical purposes what you seem to feel is panic on those more concerned with global warming. I believe AGW is a concern, but I don't know how much of a concern it should be. Others may have a different opinion.

Why control or curtail any of it? Who cares what happens to your million dollar beach house - that is for you to deal with when you decide to buy it. Same way I feel about those idiots that keep building multi million dollar homes on the hills of Hollywood and then get all upset when they slide down the hill.

 

[Wuwei]

Why control or curtail any of it? Who cares what happens to your million dollar beach house - that is for you to deal with when you decide to buy it. Same way I feel about those idiots that keep building multi million dollar homes on the hills of Hollywood and then get all upset when they slide down the hill.

I agree. As I said, I don't take pity on them. I was just saying what would be more politically viable than what the OP was suggesting. I would go further to say that those areas on the coast or a steep hillside should never be considered disaster areas and qualify for a federal monetary bail-out.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why control or curtail any of it? Who cares what happens to your million dollar beach house - that is for you to deal with when you decide to buy it. Same way I feel about those idiots that keep building multi million dollar homes on the hills of Hollywood and then get all upset when they slide down the hill.

I agree. As I said, I don't take pity on them. I was just saying what would be more politically viable than what the OP was suggesting. I would go further to say that those areas on the coast or a steep hillside should never be considered disaster areas and qualify for a federal monetary bail-out.

No they should not, I agree.

I think it is a damn travesty that anytime a Hollywood big wig has his house start to slide down the hill they start crying that they need the government to take care it and/or cover the damage.

You decided to move there knowing good and well what happens when you put your house in an asinine place you should pay the price when the inevitable comes to pass. I am not even sure why they move there - the view over Hollywood is nasty. Beachfront homes I understand and had I the money I would likely have one myself with the understanding that it would wash away one day. I love the ocean.

 

[jwoodie]

Ironically, global warming is a boon to agriculture and combating worldwide hunger.

 

[2aguy]

Ironically, global warming is a boon to agriculture and combating worldwide hunger.

That is why the left is so worried...they think the world has too many people already...they don't want any more....

 

[DonaldFG]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is no 90% consensus...that is made up.

 

[FA_Q2]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

That is not a solution - that is a challenge.

The solution is in advancement of technology - something that is STIFLED by spending trillions on ineffective plans that do not have any chance of creating real changes in AGW.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

There is not a 90% consensus.....

 

[there4eyeM]

Does the vast action of humanity have an effect on the atmosphere? That is hardly a reasonable question; of course it does. Is that the important thing? Do we need to 'save the planet'? Is it important to be thinking about generations in the future? No, not really. What is important is the here and now, us. And the gigantic volume of pollution is hideous, poisonous and disgusting, right now. That is reason enough to adopt reasonable measures. What is so surprising is the vehement resistance to having a more beautiful environment and healthy conditions now. Addiction to excess is always a sickness.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

 

[2aguy]

Does the vast action of humanity have an effect on the atmosphere? That is hardly a reasonable question; of course it does. Is that the important thing? Do we need to 'save the planet'? Is it important to be thinking about generations in the future? No, not really. What is important is the here and now, us. And the gigantic volume of pollution is hideous, poisonous and disgusting, right now. That is reason enough to adopt reasonable measures. What is so surprising is the vehement resistance to having a more beautiful environment and healthy conditions now. Addiction to excess is always a sickness.

No....the "resistance" is based on the false premise that humans are damaging the entire planet and that in order to fix it we have to give control to a bunch of left wing statists....who will then impose draconian policies on how we get and use energy, while they will naturally exempt themselves.......

The western democracies have the cleanest environments...the state controlled societies have the worst pollution...you guys want the state controlled society solutions...which will actually make things worse.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

 

[there4eyeM]

How is it that so many posters confuse a singular person posting as a plural? It is a genuine sign of insecurity and refusal to comprehend.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

 

[there4eyeM]

Anything suggestive of reasonable moderation is seized upon as 'anti-American'. Speak of the ridiculous excesses of U.S. vehicles, electricity waste, absurd 'must-haves', and one is relegated to the 'fascist-communist-socialist-liberal-progressive' corner. That is why many reasonable people don't participate at all in this debate, and why this poster won't bring them up.

 

[2aguy]

This has always been the problem with AGW. No matter what you belive the outcome is going to be, there are no actual solutions presented.

No solutions that cost a lot of money and resources to implement.

You can't change anything without a massive shift in how we generate energy. And that takes money. Yes, I agree with the 90% scientific consensus that we have have created this drastic change in climate by our use of fossil fuels, and we need to stop.

OK so we need to stop using fossil fuels but the wackos on the left refuse to even consider nuclear power for reliable abundant emission free power

We don't need to stop using fossil fuels.....they want us to stop using them because in order to use solar and wind, would require a drastic surrendering of our economies and freedoms to central planners in the government.....that is why they want us to get rid of fossil fuels....also, it would mean they can impose strict birth control regimes in the 3rd world.....to keep them from using the fossil fuels they need to advance their countries developments.......

Fossil fuels are a finite resource so we will have to stop using them eventually

No one denies that....but what the left wants is to just stop using them with no alternative to make up for them. That is the problem...we have a huge supply of oil, natural gas and coal, and each year they become cleaner to use and more efficient....yet the left wants to simply stop using them in exchange for unreliable sun and wind energy...that costs more, is less reliable and cannot sustain the population levels we have......can you explain why they refuse to invest in Nuclear Energy, when it is cleaner than all 3, and provides the same level of energy....? When you get past their defenses, when they are honest, it all boils down to the fact they think the world is overpopulated........and that fossil fuels allows us to have huge population levels living in prosperity and comfort.....and that drives them nuts.....