The Uninhabitable Earth

[CrusaderFrank]

The point I was going to make regarding the increase in CO2 before I got sidetracked was this: if the increase causes an increase in temperature why is it there is no lab work showing the temperature increase?

 

[Dale Smith]

Dude, go find someone that cares about your insane paranoia.

Sucks for you when your lame thread gets ripped...tough shit.

 

[Crick]

Certainly wasn't ripped by anyone posting pictures of contrails in the sky.

 

[darwing]

Environmental protection has become a thorny issue. The government should crack down on those polluting enterprises.

 

[Crick]

Well, the Trump administration is unlikely to crack down on any businesses, particularly those donating to his election fund (which most have done). And the government can only go as far as the law will allow. We do not have laws against CO2 emissions, at least since Trump began the cancellation of Obama's regulatory Clean Power Plan. What is needed, of course, is getting rid of Trump and then establishing green policies, green laws based on those policies and a regulatory framework to enforce those laws.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is absolutely time to panic about climate change
It is absolutely time to panic about climate change

Author David Wallace-Wells on the dystopian hellscape that awaits us


"It is, I promise, worse than you think."

That was the fist line of David Wallace-Wells horrifying 2017 essay in New York Magazine* about climate change. It ws an attempt to pain a very real picture of our not-too-distant future, a future filled with famines, political chaos, economic collapse, fierce resource competition and a sun that cooks us

* When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

Wallace-Wells has developed his essay into a new book: The Uninhabitable Earth.

You should check out the Vox article at the top link. The first of many points: the difference between constraining the temperature rise to 1.5C rather than 2C would be the deaths of 150 million people, from air pollution alone.

Anytime you must rely on instilling fear in a population to get what you want, you are LYING!

If your position was realistic, you would not need to terrorize the natives.

Sent from my SM-G892A using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Tell that to the Tutsis of Rwanda, the jews of Nazi Germany, the Albanians in the Kosovo wars. God are you stupid.

Tell that to the Tutsis of Rwanda, the jews of Nazi Germany, the Albanians in the Kosovo wars. God are you stupid.

Did they die because of global warming?

 

[gallantwarrior]

The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

Who are the leading climate scientists in the world and for whom do they work. To whom are they beholden for their grant monies?

Find that answer and you can pretty much figure out how their data is developed and interpreted.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I am trying to get everyone to understand the risk we face and act to stop it. If you think the proper response to news of this sort is to say your prayers and then kiss your ass goodbye, then I'm afraid you're a useless coward and there's not much point talking to you.

That response was not well thought out.

I disagree.

I live in Missouri...deep in tornado alley.

I grew up in the Kansas suburbs of Kansas City.

But, my house was built in 1915 and it's still standing, as my town hasn't been hit by a devastating tornado in a century. So people here have a choice, each with compelling data sets from which to draw conclusions.

The house I grew up in was built in 1949 and has never been hit by a tornado. But my junior high school was (while we were in it). My sister's place in Manhattan, Ks (K-State) was heavily damaged by a tornado that ripped a swath of destruction through the middle of town.

A person who believes the threat is significant might built a storm shelter, make an emergency plan, or buy emergency supplies to be prepared. A person who thinks the threat is overstated will probably do nothing.

There is a large qualitative difference between the threat posed by tornadoes and that posed by global warming. Tornado damage is constrained to the immediate vicinity of storms. Dismissing the threat is simply a matter of playing the odds. That is not the case with global warming. Global warming will affect every square inch of the planet. There is no escaping it. There is no chance that it won't impact you.

Additionally, I know of nothing one can do to prevent the occurrence of tornadoes. We can do something to minimize global warming. It's too late to stop it from hurting us severely, but the faster we reduce and eliminate our carbon emissions, the sooner it will slow and stop and begin to cool.

Is the person who builds or purchases a storm shelter a coward?

A coward? You have an odd way of thinking about this. Are you attempting to suggest that you're brave for doing without? I would say that the person who doesn't make certain their house meets building codes, who doesn't make preparations before the season and before storms (trimming trees, storing loose materials, getting away from windows, into basements or bathrooms) is being stupid. Those who do are being smart.

Of course not...only a complete idiot would take the position that a person making preparations to combat a threat they believe could kill them or alter their life forever is a coward.

You completely misunderstand my comment about being a coward. AGW is a man-made effect. It can be stopped my human action. To simply give up and, as I said, recommend nothing more than kissing your ass goodbye, is cowardly. You gave me two choices: prepare for the end or do nothing. Well, go **** yourself, I'm taking the other option: I intend to fight this tooth and nail and have been doing so for several years.

One step beyond this, if I tell my new neighbor about the threat of tornadoes in Missouri and they ask about storm shelters...which response do you believe will make the neighbor take the threat more seriously:

"Well, I have one."

...or...

"I don't have one."

Let me suggest you give them a different answer altogether. Obviously, the threat exists. Explain to them as best you can what the odds might be of suffering damage from a tornado. Let them decide whether or not they wish to play it safe or play the odds.

See my point? If you and others like you actually BELIEVED the world was going to end due to climate change...YOU would personally be doing something to mitigate it's effects on you and those you love INDEPENDENT of society...which is mostly doing nothing.

I see a point that is dramatically in error. As I explained, global warming is qualitatively different than a tornado. YOU need to objectively examine the evidence supporting AGW and, if you can find any, the evidence refuting it. Decide whether or not you believe AGW is an accurate description of the behavior of our climate. It you decide that it is, for the good of your children, their children and their children, you need to take whatever actions you can to help stave off disaster. Reduce your own emissions. Vote for political candidates that will work to reduce emissions. Buy products with the smallest possible carbon footprints. Provide homes for wildlife and insects. Plant a tree. Tell your friends and your coworkers around the water cooler that you have realized AGW is a threat that requires immediate action on all our parts. Urge them to join you. Urge everyone to join you.

And you aren't...which leads the rest of us to believe that you really don't believe it. It's either virtue signalling, the result of childhood indoctrination into the Global Warming Cult, or there is another ulterior motivation for your Chicken Little rhetoric.

Try again. Be brave. Act.

I'd be interested in the actions you are taking to "fight this tooth and nail". What positive things can be done to avert the coming AGW disaster?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Well, I just chipped an inch of ice off my sidewalk yesterday.

Damned global warming! I'm still shoveling almost 4' of the stuff. (AGW, that is.)

 

[gallantwarrior]

Strangely, everyone who supposedly believes that manmade climate change is going to cause TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it) never act like they are preparing for TEOTWAWKI. In fact, they are doing the exact opposite.

You want me to believe that you believe this crap? Show me by your actions.

I am trying to get everyone to understand the risk we face and act to stop it. If you think the proper response to news of this sort is to say your prayers and then kiss your ass goodbye, then I'm afraid you're a useless coward and there's not much point talking to you.

What's the temperature anomaly gonna be in 2100? Help me understand the "risk"... Maybe that will help YOU understand why this whole farce is stalled out....

There's a very good chance it will be +4C.

There's also a very good chance it will be -4C. About 7 degrees F. Do you really believe the temperature will change either way by SEVEN DEGREES in a blink?

Here, the temperature changes more than that daily. Right now, it's -9 and expected to rise to +28-30 this afternoon. Predicted to vacillate the same range all week. Must be AGW!

 

[gallantwarrior]

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Show us a decrease in the number of climate scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions.

Show us an increase in the number of papers challenging those conclusions.

We have.. Repeatedly.. But it's not a NY Times story.. All of the most important parameters in projecting future CO2 forcing effects have been CONSISTENTLY REVISED DOWNWARD over 30 years.. We've posted charts of consensus on various forms of "climate sensitivity numbers" that have been cut by almost 70% over that time period for example.. I just posted a the best survey of climate scientists saying that the general public is being misled about scientific estimates and conclusions for GW/CC...

Now answer the question.. Is 4degC anomaly in 2100 a CURRENT "consensus" estimate? if so --

A) Where did you get it?

B) What is the RANGE on that estimate?

C) How much of that anomaly depends on the super hyped positive feedback, runaway acceleration catastrophic elements of UNSETTLED GW science??

I got it from an interview with Ross Gelbspan, the author of "The Heat is On". I haven't the faintest idea what the range of that estimate might be. My statement, in answer to your query what the temperature would be in 2100 was "It will probably be +4C". It is my current opinion. If it had come from a scientific study, I would have given you the source. And I will always take the opinions of actual climate scientists performing actual science and making actual climate sensitivity calculations over your self-righteous and uninformed opinions on any of these topics.

Ohhh, so there is no science behind these alarmist projections

Science fiction.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Environmental protection has become a thorny issue. The government should crack down on those polluting enterprises.

Animals, including humans, emit CO2 as part of their life processes. Kinda makes animals "polluting enterprises". I'd like to invite any human animal intensely concerned with CO2 emissions to correct the problem by eliminating themselves as a "polluting enterprise". Please.

 

[Crick]

Yo, stupid! The number of creatures has not significantly increased. The mass of plants taking CO2 back in HAS. Plants only hold it till they die and decompose, but prior to human deforestation, a significant amount of CO2 was held in the planet's total flora biomass. As humans have decreased the volume of vegetation on the planet, that amount has been released to the atmosphere and the ability of the sink to take in increasing amounts of CO2 has decreased.

 

[flacaltenn]

Given the actions of "real" scientists, you're probably right.

Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University. Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information. The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever. Data used by the United Nations IPCC findings came from EAU

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED!

There has been no global warming since 1995

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
[…]
Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this fiasco.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports. It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws. In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like Science and Nature.

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative." No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities. But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken. Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online

Don't care. The vast majority of climate scientists are convinced it is real. Now, if you can show that thousands of them are considering suicide for their decision, you might have something.

Convinced WHAT'S REAL??? 8DegC by 2100 as it was prior to 2000? Or the 2 or 3DegC prediction from the LAST IPCC farce?? All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

So Bulldoggy -- WHAT do climate scientists agree on again? And what do they say aboutt the temperature anomaly is gonna be in 2100??

Unfortunately, I'm not a climate scientist, and as far as I know you aren't either. If I am mistaken, please present your credentials. Your charts and stuff mean nothing to me because I am not qualified to evaluate them, or even know if they are even pertinent to the discussion, because of that whole not being a climate scientist thing. The best I can do is go by what the leading climate scientists say.

I have seen more EKG readouts than most, and after having so many explained to me, I have a general idea what I'm looking at. However, if a qualified cardiologist tells me my interpretation is wrong, I'm not going to argue with him. If the vast majority of cardiologists looked at that readout, and agreed with the first, it would be stupid of me to try to explain where they were wrong, or say one of them had a messy office, so I must be right. I see the climate change issue in a similar light. I don't have the expertise to prove them wrong, so I have to rely on the best in the field. Who has the best credentials.

Of course, if you are a trained climate scientist, I will certainly consider your opinion on climate change along with the vast majority of other climate scientists, or, I could just rely on Alex Jones for my information like you seem to do..

You have no clue how science is organized and works. Ocasio-Cortez is a waitress with a bogus economics degree hawking a grand glitter farting Green Raw Meal because she KNOWS the world is gonna end in 12 years and she wants to SCARE THE PISS out of 5th graders..

Climate science is perhaps the most INTERDISCIPLINARY science that ever stalked the planet. You can write as a climate scientist on anything from rodents to atmospheric physics. It could not EXIST without about 10 important scientific specialties.. It has been largely based on data analysis and modeling which IS my specialty for my career.. I've found signals and images that nobody else had been able to do. From ocean acoustics to missile launch sites to breast tumors. My career tools have been used in over a dozen specialty disciplines and are VERY applicable to reading climate science.

ANYONE that can read thru a monthly issue of Scientific American can read and interpret climate science. And the fact that Scientific American has readership by virtually all of the science specialties shows how fungible (tradeable) science tools and skill are. I've had to learn specialties in MANY fields during my career, but I have valid credentials in Earth science from designing the image processing systems and algorithms STILL in use for analyzing Earth resources from space. Algorithms that include the EARLIEST "sea ice" calculators and land cover classifiers. So NONE of what I read in climate science intimidates me.. It's actually mostly 80% data preparation/analysis.. No more intimidating that learning marine mammal biology and communication than I've done for research contracts in the past.

Virtually no serious research scientist I've worked with has the "hoarder" office of Phil Jones. THat's just appalling. But it's NOT germane. What IS germane is that East Anglia has REPEATEDLY restricted access to their data and data prep methods for replication. That is the "coin of the realm" in science and how "theories" get verified...

This whole Clown convention has been skewed by a dozen or so "activists in labcoats" giving the media and the public a "catastrophic" interpretation of GW science. They gave cover to politicians and partisan journalists to LIE about what is known and generally agreed upon.. And THAT is what those graphs I gave you show.. The VAST MAJORITY of people working in this field object to the hype and distortions that had fueled this train. And it's over.. Those days are gone. You don't hear credible people hawking DOOM and destruction monthly in the media now. Except for those waitresses serving up Green Raw Meals so that they can control the entire economy and well-being of every citizen....

WHY isn't this runaway circus train on the tracks anymore? Because, science doesn't appreciate being used and abused. Look at those 2 polling graphs again.. The bar charts aren't any more intimidating than reading a Pew Poll..,. YOU can even do it...,.,

Got it. Science is such a general endeavor till there is no difference between any of the different disciplines. A physicist is the same as chemist is the same as a astronomer is the same as a mathematician is the same as a biologist. Of course all of those disciplines are subservient to someone who can code a little bit. I can build and code a little biofeedback devise based on galvanic effect. Does that make me a super scientist too? Does that mean my knowledge is the combination of all knowledge contained in each and every one of the scientific disciplines, or would that just make me a blow hard like you if I made that claim?

You ABSOLUTELY failed to grasp the difference between SPECIALITIES and APPLICATIONS... So I'm not wasting anymore time with your self-imposed ignorance and trolling.. Can a biologist study the climate pressure on a species and UNDERSTAND what warming rates are likely?

Is a mathematician or a data analyst restricted to any one particular application area? In many application areas, you HAVE to be a physicist AND a chemist.. And Climate science has the BROADEST need for multi-disciplinary teamwork. And for **** sake, most any physicist, chemist, data analyst, engineer can follow the task of collecting and analyzing something as simple as ******* THERMOMETER READINGS...,

Most scientists have been "read into" a large NUMBER of application areas.. Friends of mine at Lawrence Livermore had to reinvent that place when the Cold War ended. They ended up transitioning from NUCLEAR WEAPONS to kidney dialysis and Biometric Identification and mine sweeping and robotics.

Climate science is a very large APPLICATION AREA requiring DOZENS of specialties...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Yo, stupid! The number of creatures has not significantly increased. The mass of plants taking CO2 back in HAS. Plants only hold it till they die and decompose, but prior to human deforestation, a significant amount of CO2 was held in the planet's total flora biomass. As humans have decreased the volume of vegetation on the planet, that amount has been released to the atmosphere and the ability of the sink to take in increasing amounts of CO2 has decreased.

Are you referring to me? Stupid? Well, thank you for the compliment. Ad hominem attacks are so predictable when the religious are failing. Go ahead, call me names, but you can still not present actual, verifiable FACTS that AGW is occurring. And if you do so fervently believe that human existence has that much effect on the environment, why are you still sucking oxygen...and emitting co2? Go ahead, lead by example...or are you such a coward that you would not eliminate yourself as a contributor?

 

[Crick]

All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

1) Would you care to demonstrate some real metrics supporting your claim that climate scientists are now making fewer predictions due to less alarming data

2) Bray and VonStorch are NOT the only ones to poll scientists and they STILL have not published the results of their study of TEN YEARS AGO. But if you like them, then you must respect their results:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[138] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[139]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang.....some people really need a beer and plan.

 

[flacaltenn]

All the estimates of critical parameters and predictions have GONE DONE constantly since this "big scare" started.. And there's been no monthly new predictions of 2100 temps or sea levels BECAUSE they are not as gloomy or hysterical as they were in 2000.. Or certainly 1980...

IN FACT -- MOST climate scientists AGREE that that the public and media have been MISLED about the science.. In the most comprehensive survey of climate scientists BY climate scientists and one of the few that it actually POLLED (not divined from abstracts) --- THE VAST MAJORITY agree with exactly what I told you above... From Bray and von Storch 2005 ---

1) Would you care to demonstrate some real metrics supporting your claim that climate scientists are now making fewer predictions due to less alarming data

2) Bray and VonStorch are NOT the only ones to poll scientists and they STILL have not published the results of their study of TEN YEARS AGO. But if you like them, then you must respect their results:

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[138] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[139]

The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

You're doing nothing to address my question of what the temperature anomaly WILL BE in 2100.. There HAVEN"T BEEN any "recent predictions".. Go check me on that. That's because almost ALL the "older predictions" ranged from poor to laughable.. We can't sit here and argue the END DATE on the planet if you won't TELL ME -- how bad it's gonna be in 2100...

Which goes to your silly criticism of Bray/von Storch.. Your SOURCE is years behind. That survey is in it's 3rd and 4th edition.. The graphs I'm showing are from the 2015 version which is TEN YEARS OLDER than your ******* source.. And citing bullshit questions like "IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING" -- your #1 reference -- just proves you CAN NOT READ SCIENCE critically.. I AGREE -- the "climate is changing".. It always has..

Don't be a moron and try to attack the most comprehensive survey of "climate opinion".. There is hardly a consensus on ANY VITAL question related to Climate science. Stick to telling me about what is KNOWN about HOW BAD this effect will be by the end of this century...

Those questions you "blued:" above don't SAY how bad it will be --- do they? But if you look thru the OTHER 100 questions asked in those surveys -- you'll find a strong opinion that the models are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to be MAKING predictions 30 or 50 years out.. If "climate scientists" don't agree in the ACCURACY of the modeling --- this issue is FAR from settled science...

THIS QUESTION below in the poll is a FUNDAMENTALLY VITAL question for ANY "consensus" on these catastrophic projections and predictions that you've been brainwashed with..

Are the models accurate enough?

And another VITALLY IMPORTANT question to correct the public misperception that Climate Scientists are "in consensus" on TODAY'S "extreme weather events" are directly attributable to "climate change"...

There IS NO "consensus" on climate change when you ask IMPORTANT questions..

Now -- what is that temperature anomaly gonna be in 2100 again? And those 4 questions about that number you should get for us here...

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, the Trump administration is unlikely to crack down on any businesses, particularly those donating to his election fund (which most have done). And the government can only go as far as the law will allow. We do not have laws against CO2 emissions, at least since Trump began the cancellation of Obama's regulatory Clean Power Plan. What is needed, of course, is getting rid of Trump and then establishing green policies, green laws based on those policies and a regulatory framework to enforce those laws.

There's a major diff between POLLUTION and carbon dioxide emissions. NOBODY is promoting more pollution.. Except the ecofrauds that are more afraid of nuclear power than they are of Globull Warming..

 

[flacaltenn]

It is absolutely time to panic about climate change
It is absolutely time to panic about climate change

Author David Wallace-Wells on the dystopian hellscape that awaits us


"It is, I promise, worse than you think."

That was the fist line of David Wallace-Wells horrifying 2017 essay in New York Magazine* about climate change. It ws an attempt to pain a very real picture of our not-too-distant future, a future filled with famines, political chaos, economic collapse, fierce resource competition and a sun that cooks us

* When Will the Planet Be Too Hot for Humans? Much, Much Sooner Than You Imagine.

Wallace-Wells has developed his essay into a new book: The Uninhabitable Earth.

You should check out the Vox article at the top link. The first of many points: the difference between constraining the temperature rise to 1.5C rather than 2C would be the deaths of 150 million people, from air pollution alone.

Anytime you must rely on instilling fear in a population to get what you want, you are LYING!

If your position was realistic, you would not need to terrorize the natives.

Sent from my SM-G892A using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

Tell that to the Tutsis of Rwanda, the jews of Nazi Germany, the Albanians in the Kosovo wars. God are you stupid.

What does genocide have to do with any of this? Are you actually that SCARED?? Based on what? What's twisting your panties like a native machete attack or a concentration camp?

Getting obtuse with Tutisis and Jews could actually OFFEND a lot of people compared to the 0.6DegC rise in GMASTemperature during your wasted lifetime of whining about this issue..