So Where will you go? The coming mass migrations due to Anthropogenic Climate Change

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
"So where will you go?"

Well, if you're a wealthy, powerful liberal, you'll buy a beach house.


Miami New Construction Condos



NameNeighborhoodMin PriceMax PriceSales
1000 Museum 1000 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, F ...Downtown Miami$4,390,000$18,800,000Sales (12)
57 Ocean Miami Beach 5775 Collins Ave. M ...Miami Beach$2,575,000$35,000,000Sales (6)
Alton Bay Miami Beach 3900 Alton Rd. Mia ...Miami Beach$0$0Sales (0)
Aria on the Bay 1770 N. Bayshore Dr. Mia ...Edgewater$350,000$5,900,000Sales (83)





Don't forget the hundreds of millions being spent on international airports all over the Maldives which are supposed to be under water in 10 years. Nobody spends that much money on an investment that could never pay itself off.
And don't forget the island countries that are having to move because they are now under water.






Oh? Name them. The Maldives are one of those supposed island countries and yet they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to bring people TO their supposedly sinking islands. A thinking person would wonder why do that if they are going to be under water soon.
Point is -- they put THEMSELVES in danger by destroying their OWN environment.. When you asphalt/concrete over 80% to 90% of ANY small island -- every bit of polluted runoff runs to the sea and EROSION IS BOUND to happen on the fringes...

Leftists see these folks as primitive culture carving out faces on coconuts for export and money,.. If they saw how these enviro arsonist treating their precious islands -- then should see them as villains rather then victims..
In some ways I have to agree. I have visited some of those places. Not the most sanitary places. And when the drinking water comes from the same river that the crap is dumped into you drink imported bottled water. But it doesn't change the fact that the seas are rising. But what's worse, the storms are much worse now and it's causing some serious erosion. Then add to the fact these island nations don't have the funds to build it back.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,370
Reaction score
20,504
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
"So where will you go?"

Well, if you're a wealthy, powerful liberal, you'll buy a beach house.


Miami New Construction Condos



NameNeighborhoodMin PriceMax PriceSales
1000 Museum 1000 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, F ...Downtown Miami$4,390,000$18,800,000Sales (12)
57 Ocean Miami Beach 5775 Collins Ave. M ...Miami Beach$2,575,000$35,000,000Sales (6)
Alton Bay Miami Beach 3900 Alton Rd. Mia ...Miami Beach$0$0Sales (0)
Aria on the Bay 1770 N. Bayshore Dr. Mia ...Edgewater$350,000$5,900,000Sales (83)





Don't forget the hundreds of millions being spent on international airports all over the Maldives which are supposed to be under water in 10 years. Nobody spends that much money on an investment that could never pay itself off.
And don't forget the island countries that are having to move because they are now under water.






Oh? Name them. The Maldives are one of those supposed island countries and yet they are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to bring people TO their supposedly sinking islands. A thinking person would wonder why do that if they are going to be under water soon.
Point is -- they put THEMSELVES in danger by destroying their OWN environment.. When you asphalt/concrete over 80% to 90% of ANY small island -- every bit of polluted runoff runs to the sea and EROSION IS BOUND to happen on the fringes...

Leftists see these folks as primitive culture carving out faces on coconuts for export and money,.. If they saw how these enviro arsonist treating their precious islands -- then should see them as villains rather then victims..
In some ways I have to agree. I have visited some of those places. Not the most sanitary places. And when the drinking water comes from the same river that the crap is dumped into you drink imported bottled water. But it doesn't change the fact that the seas are rising. But what's worse, the storms are much worse now and it's causing some serious erosion. Then add to the fact these island nations don't have the funds to build it back.






Not one island has disappeared. Not one. Furthermore with the hundreds of millions being spent on airports it's OBVIOUS to those with power and money, that those islands aren't EVER going underwater.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,049
Reaction score
14,715
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
Pre-Stalinist Russia.. Was "democratic Marxism" without a dictator until it FAILED and required a dictator.. But you're derailing the point about "extreme green" is a Marxist tactic. Just look at the idiocy of the Green New Deal which wraps every social issue around solar and wind to save the planet.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.

In fact, someone just broke a story about one of Marxist BLM leaders saying the same damn thing. That "black people will never be free and equal under capitalism.. Marxist fans KNOW they have to make themselves relevant by HIJACKING environmental issues and race issues and any other convenient wedge issue to "grow a base"...
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
Freedom and govt have NOTHING to do with Climate change. WHY? Because the scary projections that play on people's fears have been DOWNGRADED for DECADES now.. You should have spent your time NOT researching "where ya gonna go" and instead -- follow the science..

Sea level rise projected DOWN by a factor of 3 to 6 since 1985.. Temperatures DOWN in 2100 by a factor of 2 to 4.. At the current rate of sea level rise for example -- the water at the shore will be 6 to 8 INCHES higher in 2060... And Antarctica MAY MELT a bit -- but just in the past 8 years or so the "Science Says" -- it would more likely be from ACTIVE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY under the West Ant. Ice shelf than by Global Warming..

And the NYTimes playing on your FEARS with that opening pic of the Cali fires? -- GW plays almost no role.. MORE important factors are LAND USE issues -- causing MORE PEOPLE and infrastructure to live in proximity to fire prone areas and BAD non-scientific theories of forest management purveyed by leftist lunatics that want NO "forest/wilderness management"...

LOTS of reasons why the GW circus train is stalled on the tracks.. Because the "level of crisis" is NOWHERE NEAR what the original hysteria and hype predicted.. But old outdated scary shit on the internet and bad public school indoctrination, and shady moronic politicians like AOC telling kids they have 12 years to live have been LARGELY REJECTED as the hype they are.. And excuses for BIGGER GOVT programs that have zilch to do with the environment or GWeirding..

You can sit on the train.. But it aint going anywhere fast these days...
You may wish to listen to an old High Country Rancher on this one. Yes, Mother Nature does have her way. And we have to cooperate with her. But we can also help her. On the flip side, we can do things to harm her. When things are going bad, like they do, we can eccellerate things or lessen the impact just by our actions. We call it God's Country and we don't own it, we are the caretakers. And we aren't doing a very good job lately. And Mother nature is pissed.
Never said man is not the issue.. GWarming tho is not the ANSWER to every enviro question.. It's a political cop-out to ignore man-made policies that CONTRIBUTE to fire/flood in Cali.. And it's a willful DISMISSAL of the science of land mgt and use.

My BIGGEST beef with GWarming -- as an ardent environmentalist -- is that GW has KILLED the overall enviro movement.. Unless you can tie an issue to GW -- you won't get any recognition or traction on it.. Whales and penguins be damned if GW is not the answer..

Those leaking thousands of acre of US Military nuclear waste doesn't even get into the to-do list.. The warmers PURPOSELY CONFUSED "carbon" with "CO2" pollution, in opposition to science, to wrap up a sad story for children into one little fable..

Science and politics should never mix.. Each one starts using the other as a CRUTCH for their OWN FAILURES....
Wow, did you just feel the earth shudder? I actually agree with you. I was born and raised in the High Country and Conservation is a way of life. Our livelyhoods depended on it. Sometimes a good fire was a good thing as it allowed the grass to come back strong the next year. Other times, it was devistating and stripped the mountain side of the trees and allowed mud slides the likes that no one can predict. We used to get our gear (including Cats) and get to the fire first. Oftentimes, we had it contained before the BLM showed up. Then again, we were closer. And if you get to it when it's small it's much easier to contain. Well, we aren't there anymore and almost every fire gets out of control because it takes the BLM and the Forest Service a long time to mobilize. Then add to the fact that we have much less rain, hotter temps and higher winds today. I will say this, the BLM and Forest Fire Fighters ARE much better than they were back in the day but they have a much harder job to do.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,049
Reaction score
14,715
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
But it doesn't change the fact that the seas are rising. But what's worse, the storms are much worse now and it's causing some serious erosion. Then add to the fact these island nations don't have the funds to build it back.
At the current rate of sea rise -- it's be 4 to 6 inches higher by 2060.. And MOST of the current SLRise is so insignificant that 60% of rise =--= IS NOT MORE WATER. It's rising because of MINUTE amounts of "thermal expansion".. Antarctica is not gonna melt because of GW... It's NOT in the class of CATASTROPHIC crap your pants predictions that existed in the 80s and 90s...

And storms DO NOT GET more severe just because of increased surface temp.. EVERYTHING in weather is based on differentials -- not absolute value of each variable..
 

yidnar

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
12,115
Reaction score
4,523
Points
315
Location
Inside your head.
Excerpts from the link:


“... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem......”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

“The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north”.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
where would i go ? why i will pitch a tent near the property of one of the lefts greatest champions of climate change ! i will move next to Obamas 14 million $ sea side mansion when sea levels rise like he claimed they would !
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,049
Reaction score
14,715
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
Freedom and govt have NOTHING to do with Climate change. WHY? Because the scary projections that play on people's fears have been DOWNGRADED for DECADES now.. You should have spent your time NOT researching "where ya gonna go" and instead -- follow the science..

Sea level rise projected DOWN by a factor of 3 to 6 since 1985.. Temperatures DOWN in 2100 by a factor of 2 to 4.. At the current rate of sea level rise for example -- the water at the shore will be 6 to 8 INCHES higher in 2060... And Antarctica MAY MELT a bit -- but just in the past 8 years or so the "Science Says" -- it would more likely be from ACTIVE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY under the West Ant. Ice shelf than by Global Warming..

And the NYTimes playing on your FEARS with that opening pic of the Cali fires? -- GW plays almost no role.. MORE important factors are LAND USE issues -- causing MORE PEOPLE and infrastructure to live in proximity to fire prone areas and BAD non-scientific theories of forest management purveyed by leftist lunatics that want NO "forest/wilderness management"...

LOTS of reasons why the GW circus train is stalled on the tracks.. Because the "level of crisis" is NOWHERE NEAR what the original hysteria and hype predicted.. But old outdated scary shit on the internet and bad public school indoctrination, and shady moronic politicians like AOC telling kids they have 12 years to live have been LARGELY REJECTED as the hype they are.. And excuses for BIGGER GOVT programs that have zilch to do with the environment or GWeirding..

You can sit on the train.. But it aint going anywhere fast these days...
You may wish to listen to an old High Country Rancher on this one. Yes, Mother Nature does have her way. And we have to cooperate with her. But we can also help her. On the flip side, we can do things to harm her. When things are going bad, like they do, we can eccellerate things or lessen the impact just by our actions. We call it God's Country and we don't own it, we are the caretakers. And we aren't doing a very good job lately. And Mother nature is pissed.
Never said man is not the issue.. GWarming tho is not the ANSWER to every enviro question.. It's a political cop-out to ignore man-made policies that CONTRIBUTE to fire/flood in Cali.. And it's a willful DISMISSAL of the science of land mgt and use.

My BIGGEST beef with GWarming -- as an ardent environmentalist -- is that GW has KILLED the overall enviro movement.. Unless you can tie an issue to GW -- you won't get any recognition or traction on it.. Whales and penguins be damned if GW is not the answer..

Those leaking thousands of acre of US Military nuclear waste doesn't even get into the to-do list.. The warmers PURPOSELY CONFUSED "carbon" with "CO2" pollution, in opposition to science, to wrap up a sad story for children into one little fable..

Science and politics should never mix.. Each one starts using the other as a CRUTCH for their OWN FAILURES....
Wow, did you just feel the earth shudder? I actually agree with you. I was born and raised in the High Country and Conservation is a way of life. Our livelyhoods depended on it. Sometimes a good fire was a good thing as it allowed the grass to come back strong the next year. Other times, it was devistating and stripped the mountain side of the trees and allowed mud slides the likes that no one can predict. We used to get our gear (including Cats) and get to the fire first. Oftentimes, we had it contained before the BLM showed up. Then again, we were closer. And if you get to it when it's small it's much easier to contain. Well, we aren't there anymore and almost every fire gets out of control because it takes the BLM and the Forest Service a long time to mobilize. Then add to the fact that we have much less rain, hotter temps and higher winds today. I will say this, the BLM and Forest Fire Fighters ARE much better than they were back in the day but they have a much harder job to do.
The idea that "hands off" is gospel from Gaia is what has put fires out of control.. Can't have ACCESS roads or fire infrastructure.. Can't salvage or remove dead wood. Can't CREATE FIREBREAKS between forest and new towns and development. Can't even MAINTAIN the electrical grid TO these new developments. Can't graze sheep or cows to keep down the brush..

These new age shamans probably would have put bounties on those huge plant eating dinosaurs that "cleaned up" the wilderness for Mother Nature.. They are truly "religious nutcases"...

I had MANY college friends and roommates in forestry and resource mgt.. I've SEEN their work when it WAS ALLOWED.. And it puts no scars on Mother Nature that Mother couldn't fix in less than a decade.. But all that science and process is "out the winder" now in those looney leftist states...
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
Pre-Stalinist Russia.. Was "democratic Marxism" without a dictator until it FAILED and required a dictator.. But you're derailing the point about "extreme green" is a Marxist tactic. Just look at the idiocy of the Green New Deal which wraps every social issue around solar and wind to save the planet.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.

In fact, someone just broke a story about one of Marxist BLM leaders saying the same damn thing. That "black people will never be free and equal under capitalism.. Marxist fans KNOW they have to make themselves relevant by HIJACKING environmental issues and race issues and any other convenient wedge issue to "grow a base"...
The problem with a small group of people claiming to be the Leaders of the BLM is rediculous. We have BLM marches here. It's home grown, home ran and we don't have any rioting or looting. We wouldn't put up with it. It's a little tough to try and loot and riot when the protesters beat thee living crap out of you.

And we don't let anyone hijack our conservation around here. We've been doing it for about 150 years and have a pretty good handle on it. It's not political, it's a way of life. Our actions have consequences for the good and the bad. Always has.

We have been phasing out Coal for the last 50 years and it's pretty well gone. We don't burn it here, we export it. Our air (not counting the Fires Right Now) is clean. We don't have garbage along the hiways. And even our homeless are well mannered and neat. Yes, Dorathy, even paradise has a Homeless Population. Our biggest problem right now is Covid and the Lockdown. It's not even about the economics. I want to join a Car Club but no meetings have been had since March. Over half the members are over 60. For the most part, we wear masks. We take the 6 ft seriously and we have the same population as South Dakota in this County and have a total of 5 Covid 19 related Deaths. Add to that mix, this area has a very high degree of Seniors and we have approached it like adults. It's not Politics, it's survival. And we have opened up a lot more than most of the nation but we do it like adults.

Covid 19 is in the same ballpark as the Environment. It's NOT political. It's about survival on alll counts. Do it right and you win for you and your Grand Children. Do it wrong and you F*** it up for many years to come.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,370
Reaction score
20,504
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
Pre-Stalinist Russia.. Was "democratic Marxism" without a dictator until it FAILED and required a dictator.. But you're derailing the point about "extreme green" is a Marxist tactic. Just look at the idiocy of the Green New Deal which wraps every social issue around solar and wind to save the planet.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.

In fact, someone just broke a story about one of Marxist BLM leaders saying the same damn thing. That "black people will never be free and equal under capitalism.. Marxist fans KNOW they have to make themselves relevant by HIJACKING environmental issues and race issues and any other convenient wedge issue to "grow a base"...
The problem with a small group of people claiming to be the Leaders of the BLM is rediculous. We have BLM marches here. It's home grown, home ran and we don't have any rioting or looting. We wouldn't put up with it. It's a little tough to try and loot and riot when the protesters beat thee living crap out of you.

And we don't let anyone hijack our conservation around here. We've been doing it for about 150 years and have a pretty good handle on it. It's not political, it's a way of life. Our actions have consequences for the good and the bad. Always has.

We have been phasing out Coal for the last 50 years and it's pretty well gone. We don't burn it here, we export it. Our air (not counting the Fires Right Now) is clean. We don't have garbage along the hiways. And even our homeless are well mannered and neat. Yes, Dorathy, even paradise has a Homeless Population. Our biggest problem right now is Covid and the Lockdown. It's not even about the economics. I want to join a Car Club but no meetings have been had since March. Over half the members are over 60. For the most part, we wear masks. We take the 6 ft seriously and we have the same population as South Dakota in this County and have a total of 5 Covid 19 related Deaths. Add to that mix, this area has a very high degree of Seniors and we have approached it like adults. It's not Politics, it's survival. And we have opened up a lot more than most of the nation but we do it like adults.

Covid 19 is in the same ballpark as the Environment. It's NOT political. It's about survival on alll counts. Do it right and you win for you and your Grand Children. Do it wrong and you F*** it up for many years to come.






Covid became political the second the media attacked hydroxychloroquin. The second they decided that political power was more important than human life is the second covid became THE political weapon that it has become.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
Freedom and govt have NOTHING to do with Climate change. WHY? Because the scary projections that play on people's fears have been DOWNGRADED for DECADES now.. You should have spent your time NOT researching "where ya gonna go" and instead -- follow the science..

Sea level rise projected DOWN by a factor of 3 to 6 since 1985.. Temperatures DOWN in 2100 by a factor of 2 to 4.. At the current rate of sea level rise for example -- the water at the shore will be 6 to 8 INCHES higher in 2060... And Antarctica MAY MELT a bit -- but just in the past 8 years or so the "Science Says" -- it would more likely be from ACTIVE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY under the West Ant. Ice shelf than by Global Warming..

And the NYTimes playing on your FEARS with that opening pic of the Cali fires? -- GW plays almost no role.. MORE important factors are LAND USE issues -- causing MORE PEOPLE and infrastructure to live in proximity to fire prone areas and BAD non-scientific theories of forest management purveyed by leftist lunatics that want NO "forest/wilderness management"...

LOTS of reasons why the GW circus train is stalled on the tracks.. Because the "level of crisis" is NOWHERE NEAR what the original hysteria and hype predicted.. But old outdated scary shit on the internet and bad public school indoctrination, and shady moronic politicians like AOC telling kids they have 12 years to live have been LARGELY REJECTED as the hype they are.. And excuses for BIGGER GOVT programs that have zilch to do with the environment or GWeirding..

You can sit on the train.. But it aint going anywhere fast these days...
You may wish to listen to an old High Country Rancher on this one. Yes, Mother Nature does have her way. And we have to cooperate with her. But we can also help her. On the flip side, we can do things to harm her. When things are going bad, like they do, we can eccellerate things or lessen the impact just by our actions. We call it God's Country and we don't own it, we are the caretakers. And we aren't doing a very good job lately. And Mother nature is pissed.
Never said man is not the issue.. GWarming tho is not the ANSWER to every enviro question.. It's a political cop-out to ignore man-made policies that CONTRIBUTE to fire/flood in Cali.. And it's a willful DISMISSAL of the science of land mgt and use.

My BIGGEST beef with GWarming -- as an ardent environmentalist -- is that GW has KILLED the overall enviro movement.. Unless you can tie an issue to GW -- you won't get any recognition or traction on it.. Whales and penguins be damned if GW is not the answer..

Those leaking thousands of acre of US Military nuclear waste doesn't even get into the to-do list.. The warmers PURPOSELY CONFUSED "carbon" with "CO2" pollution, in opposition to science, to wrap up a sad story for children into one little fable..

Science and politics should never mix.. Each one starts using the other as a CRUTCH for their OWN FAILURES....
Wow, did you just feel the earth shudder? I actually agree with you. I was born and raised in the High Country and Conservation is a way of life. Our livelyhoods depended on it. Sometimes a good fire was a good thing as it allowed the grass to come back strong the next year. Other times, it was devistating and stripped the mountain side of the trees and allowed mud slides the likes that no one can predict. We used to get our gear (including Cats) and get to the fire first. Oftentimes, we had it contained before the BLM showed up. Then again, we were closer. And if you get to it when it's small it's much easier to contain. Well, we aren't there anymore and almost every fire gets out of control because it takes the BLM and the Forest Service a long time to mobilize. Then add to the fact that we have much less rain, hotter temps and higher winds today. I will say this, the BLM and Forest Fire Fighters ARE much better than they were back in the day but they have a much harder job to do.
The idea that "hands off" is gospel from Gaia is what has put fires out of control.. Can't have ACCESS roads or fire infrastructure.. Can't salvage or remove dead wood. Can't CREATE FIREBREAKS between forest and new towns and development. Can't even MAINTAIN the electrical grid TO these new developments. Can't graze sheep or cows to keep down the brush..

These new age shamans probably would have put bounties on those huge plant eating dinosaurs that "cleaned up" the wilderness for Mother Nature.. They are truly "religious nutcases"...

I had MANY college friends and roommates in forestry and resource mgt.. I've SEEN their work when it WAS ALLOWED.. And it puts no scars on Mother Nature that Mother couldn't fix in less than a decade.. But all that science and process is "out the winder" now in those looney leftist states...
We used to graze cattle on the high BLM and Forest Service lands. But it became no longer economically feasable. And in many areas that we used to graze, no roads, no motorized, tracked or wheeled vehicles. We used Horses. Sometime in the 1970s, all that changed it the day of the feed lot became the reality. A high Country Ranch might only be 40 to 160 acres but the bulk of that wasn't used to graze the main stock, only the breeder stock. One of the fence lines was on the BLM or the Forest Service where we were changed a whopping buck twenty five a head for them to graze. In the fall, the entire community would do a roundup, seperate the herd by brand and then we would truck them to a lower ranch to fatten them up before shipping them off by rail to the Feed lots and slaughter houses usually in Denver, Chicago, etc..

Today, those places are still there but they are owned by NYC Doctors and Lawyers who visit them once a year and claim to be Ranchers right down to the Justin Boots, Stetson Hats and Levis. We aren't there anymore. I am turning 70 in a few months and when my generation is gone, so are the memories and the old time Conservationists being guardians of Gods Country.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,808
Reaction score
11,142
Points
2,040
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
True marxism is the classless governmentless society, the thing is it cannot be achieved because people cannot be trusted with the level of power required to bring it about.

Marxism as we see it is stuck in the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. It can never progress past that point because the dictators will never give up the power they need to continue to the classless society.

Orwell saw this more than any other socialist, and even he believed in the façade of democratic socialism.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
True marxism is the classless governmentless society, the thing is it cannot be achieved because people cannot be trusted with the level of power required to bring it about.

Marxism as we see it is stuck in the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. It can never progress past that point because the dictators will never give up the power they need to continue to the classless society.

Orwell saw this more than any other socialist, and even he believed in the façade of democratic socialism.
There can never be either a Socialist nor a Democratic Government. There can never be a Socialist Communist Nation. Socialism is an economic model. And both Communism and Democracy can only exist when you are dealing with very small groups of people. You can call something anything you want. But most successful Governments are some form of Federal Republic with a blend of an economic model of Social Programs and Capitalism to pay for those social programs. Even the EU Governments are a form of Federal Republic.

One of the things a Dictator does is hang the name Socialist into the name of his government. But in the end, it's still a dictatorship and there is nothing social about it.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,049
Reaction score
14,715
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
 

martybegan

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
53,808
Reaction score
11,142
Points
2,040
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
True marxism is the classless governmentless society, the thing is it cannot be achieved because people cannot be trusted with the level of power required to bring it about.

Marxism as we see it is stuck in the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. It can never progress past that point because the dictators will never give up the power they need to continue to the classless society.

Orwell saw this more than any other socialist, and even he believed in the façade of democratic socialism.
There can never be either a Socialist nor a Democratic Government. There can never be a Socialist Communist Nation. Socialism is an economic model. And both Communism and Democracy can only exist when you are dealing with very small groups of people. You can call something anything you want. But most successful Governments are some form of Federal Republic with a blend of an economic model of Social Programs and Capitalism to pay for those social programs. Even the EU Governments are a form of Federal Republic.

One of the things a Dictator does is hang the name Socialist into the name of his government. But in the end, it's still a dictatorship and there is nothing social about it.
But the dictatorship is critical to the concept of Marx. All these idiot kids running around burning shit are mostly Marxists and Anarchists, which are really the same end goal types, but differ on how to get there.

Democrats want more power further away from the people, which is the primary concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which often becomes the dictatorship of whatever ruling class manages to get into power.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,190
Reaction score
11,307
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
Name one island that's had to be abandoned due to "rising oceans".
Nuatambu island
Micronesia
Marshal Islands

And that was from a simple google search.
You should have kept Googling, Klimate Kultist.

Busted claim: data shows that climate induced sea level rise didn't wipe out five Solomon Islands
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
61,190
Reaction score
11,307
Points
2,030
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.
10 years is weather, not climate.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
67,370
Reaction score
20,504
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.

Or the "Green Party" (whom I've worked with on ballot access with) -- these folks BELIEVE that social justice is NOT ATTAINABLE while we are a Representative Republic" who lives under capitalism.. Need to revert to cute small paint companies in a village somewhere.. Maybe 1000s of them scattered around the county to AVOID having Capitalist "Big Paint"... e.g.
(clipped not edited)
There can be no Marx or Socialist Government. Never was, ain't now and never will be. Like there can never be a Capitalist Government or even a Democratic Government. Almost all large countries are various forms of Federal Republics with a mix of Socialist and Capitalist Economics to make it work. The bigger the country is, the more Social Programs are required. But you will still need Capitalism to pay for it all. Social Programs s don't make a dime.

What I have to laugh at is when someone wants to get rid of all Socialism in the United States. They have no idea what they are going to lose. And there are those that say that all businesses should be socialized, socialism never made a dime ever. The trick is to find the happy medium of what is needed and what can be afforded. And remove Politics from the equation, it's an economic equation.
The significance of Marxism is a PHILOSOPHY -- not a governmental model.. Marxism USES popular issues to establish what we call "populist" governments that FAIL -- because they follow the Marxian Handbook... When you see a "populist movement" promoting junk enviro fixes or race division or economic redistribution, or having "social justice" as it's rallying cry -- it's headed for nothing good..

Global Warming is largely pushed by media/politicians that CRAVE more power and control to institute "Marxist principles" mixed with a lot of other bad ideas...
In the last 10 years, it has gotten warmer here and the heat increase has affected the shortage of rainfall, snowfall and the higher winds. The results from that has been lower crop output except the farmers just learned to do a better job and larger forest fires. It's real. But we have adapted well. But it's getting harder and harder to adapt.








It has? Where? I can find no place where what you claim is happening in the Rockies.
 

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
3,197
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Excerpts from the link


... For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet — changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions — the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

....... What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people — nearly one in two — will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation’s federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

.... Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone.....

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either “a crisis” or “a major problem.”


View attachment 389086

View attachment 389089

The author concludes these states will be the beneficiaries of a hotter climate:

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang’s research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it’s possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho’s up-and-coming wine country and the country’s new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.




**********************************************************************************************
It's coming. You know it is.
So the only solution is more government, less freedom, and less quality of life.

This isn't the movies, climate doesn't change overnight, or even over decade, it takes centuries, and people can adjust.

What we shouldn't do is let watermelons like you define the "only way" to save ourselves.
The author’s prognostications take place within 60 years. You have it backward. There will be more government, less freedom and less quality of of life in the future if we do nothing about anthropogenic climate change NOW.
And the only cure is more government, less freedom, and lower quality of life.

And of course Marxism, lots and lots of Marxism.
Climate change should never be political.
The whole concept is political.

For AGW alarmists the only cure is Marxism.
Wow, again, name one real Marxist country that has ever exited on the earth. But remember I get to critique your answer.
calling for a "real Marxist" country is a cop out, all socialist countries are modeled on Marx's theories, and thus are Marxist. Calling the past attempts at it "not real marxism" is either dodging the question, or admitting that true Marxism is impossible to implement.
Comon, name one. And we can discuss it. You game? it's like me saying that there are Democratic Countries.
True marxism is the classless governmentless society, the thing is it cannot be achieved because people cannot be trusted with the level of power required to bring it about.

Marxism as we see it is stuck in the dictatorship of the proletariat phase. It can never progress past that point because the dictators will never give up the power they need to continue to the classless society.

Orwell saw this more than any other socialist, and even he believed in the façade of democratic socialism.
There can never be either a Socialist nor a Democratic Government. There can never be a Socialist Communist Nation. Socialism is an economic model. And both Communism and Democracy can only exist when you are dealing with very small groups of people. You can call something anything you want. But most successful Governments are some form of Federal Republic with a blend of an economic model of Social Programs and Capitalism to pay for those social programs. Even the EU Governments are a form of Federal Republic.

One of the things a Dictator does is hang the name Socialist into the name of his government. But in the end, it's still a dictatorship and there is nothing social about it.
But the dictatorship is critical to the concept of Marx. All these idiot kids running around burning shit are mostly Marxists and Anarchists, which are really the same end goal types, but differ on how to get there.

Democrats want more power further away from the people, which is the primary concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which often becomes the dictatorship of whatever ruling class manages to get into power.
And yet, the FBI sees the Right as more a power in the Looting and Rioting than the Left. I guess you need to add Fascists to that list as well. Rather than keep hammering that the BLM is the cause, why not look at them as giving both sides the ramp to cause Chaos to keep things lit up. Looters and Rioters need to be eliminated, period. But the peaceful protesters should be left to their own devices. The Cops should be there to no only protect the public property but to protect the public as well and the peaceful protesters ARE part of the Public.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List