When my kids are my age.

are going to be lined up 10 deep along our southern borders.

We need space mirrors to buy us some time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

but face it we must. Pretending it's not happening causes even more stress.

If I could only see some action I'd feel better--I'd feel we had a chance. But I see nothing but backward thinking from all levels of government. That's what's the most depressing.

Scientists say: Houston we have a problem, a very big problem.

Corporate & Govt says: Dont Worry, Go Shopping.

I didn't have kids....

Wealthier nations such as ours, should, using public resources, support those in harm's way due to climate change. Many of the factors influencing climate change have been an economic benefit to those living well in this country.

Wealthier nations such as ours, should also support emission reductions and other strategies to mitigate climate change, even if we don't bear the brunt of its effects.

Finally, wealthier nations such as ours, should support greater immigration by such refugees and support for them once they are here.

considering that the impacts of climate change on agriculture in the western US are going to be quite severe (irrigated desert farmland currently produces 25% of America's food). And the impacts of climate change are going to be if anything worse in Mexico and Central America because they're closer to the equator; there are already some hundreds of thousands of people entering the US illegally, every year. That number is likely to increase significantly with climate change; couple that with decreased agricultural output and internal population displacement because of water shortages and crop failures and the picture starts to look very ugly.

alarmed for you involves yourself.

if it's other people, especially thousands of miles away, why would you be alarmed?

permit new nuclear plants on coastlines?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_of_the_United_States#Implementation_of_the_Energy_Act_of_2005

We have really fucked them.

There will be no mass migration. Transportation will be shut down and borders will be sealed.

but then consider the source

Certainly no mass migrations then!

shouldn't be necessary, but obvious poster is obvious.

OTOH, at least it wasn't the "Well, just ONE volcano produces way more CO2 than hyoomunz, derp derp" I had to deal with today.

It was a real exercise in nostalgia, like seeing a wind-up gramophone at your grandparent's house - dusty, scratchy, inefficient but strangely . . . cute.

there are more.

Most of the population was sedentary and agricultural.

The main migrations were military in nature, and many of them were by nomadic herders, rather than peasants. For example, the Arab expansion, the Turks, the Mongols, etc.

And has been since 2002, when they commissioned studies on how Climate Change will impact national security. As it is now, look at the Horn of Africa and watch how the rural/agricultural population has been fleeing their traditional farming lands during the past 30 years of drought.

The professionals who deal with conflict and crisis know climate change and climate migration is going to impact the "first world" within the next few decades.

Too bad crisis profiteers and disaster capitalists use their money to twist the media and public opinion to ensure the outcome they want for maximum profits twenty/thirty years down the line. And the way the human psyche tends to be wired, it's very easy to predict that most people are not going to look too far into the future and are perfectly willing to hold onto whatever theories and advice that ensures they don't need to change anything to have a comfortable life.
Most people will dig their heels in and either ignore the developing crisis or throw tantrums to make the outcome worse rather than actually assess the situation they are in and do something to mitigate as much damage as they can before the tipping point is reached and the floodwaters are rising.

Then they look for someone to blame before they drown. And the panic-stricken population will historically pick on the people who were doing the warning or trying to fix the problem in the first place, rather than the profiteering assholes who had been stealing critical resources while proclaiming "don't worry and don't try and regulate us because of fear-mongering - it's just a natural cycle and only those other people we don't want around anyway will suffer".

Haele

For example, drying steppes have driven nomads to invade wetter agricultural areas.

The military will certainly have a role in sealing borders. Even now, attitudes towards refugee migrations are changing in Europe. They will close their borders within a decade or two.

you're just trying to derail the conversation.

how far to the right can one be and still say they are in the center?

The Neolithic Revolution, Indo-European expansion, and the Early Medieval Great Migrations including Turkic expansion, Austronesian peoples spread from the South Chinese mainland to Taiwan, Indo-Aryan migration from the Indus Valley to the plain of the River Ganges, Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Indo-Parthians and Kushans in the northwestern Indian subcontinent, the Greeks, the Magyars, the Bantu and Halu, the Vatsayan Priests, the Ming occupations, et. al

A comprehensive list of human migrations would be vast. No... it's not rare at all-- what is rare however, is human migration on these scales caused solely to war and violence.

I'm concerned about the climate change (note the Orwellian, the alarmists mean AGW) alarm and hysteria and the enormous waste of time and resources associated with the scare. Science and liberalism will suffer for it, because the truth will out pretty soon.

I am somewhat worried about the global cooling in the next few decades though. In the worst case, that could mean crop failures and energy shortages.

It must be the granddaddy of all conspiracies if the vast majority of scientists don't see things the way you do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

Conflict of interest, groupthink, paradigm paralysis... Conspiracies too.

Michael Mann, March 11, 2003 (1047388489.txt):

I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.

Tom Wigley, April 24, 2003 (1051190249.txt):

One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word 'perceived' here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about -- it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.

Ed Cook to Keith Briffa, June 4, 2003 (1054756929.txt):

I got a paper to review ... that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology ... is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically.

Ray Bradley, October 30, 2003 (1067532918.txt):

Tim, Phil, Keef:
I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However, if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, July 8, 2004 (1089318616.txt):

I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Tom Wigley, January 20, 2005 (2151.txt):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

Phil Jones, March 19, 2009 (1237496573.txt):

I'm having a dispute with the new editor of Weather. I've complained about him to the RMS Chief Exec. If I don't get him to back down, I won't be sending any more papers to any RMS journals and I'll be resigning from the RMS.

...

The vast majority of scientists are agreed on this. Sorry if it discomforts you but I think we'll go wherever the science leads, not you.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

Citing the irrelevance of conspiracy theory is far more convenient than understanding science to those lacking education...

is making the rich richer and poor poorer (anti-liberal). It's you and the Big Banks, Big Oil, Big Bureaucracy, Big Corruption...

I just follow the observations and have enough scientific background (Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Heat Transfer...) to have an educated opinion.

--the Kochs et al. have spent a lot of money to deny climate change, making themselves richer. They actively work against what you call "the scare." They don't promote it.

So your argument doesn't make sense.

.... 97% of all climate scientists are wrong but you are right.

Furthermore, the AGW consensus is on shaky ground was bullied into scientific community.

"was bullied into scientific community..."

Objective, peer-reviewed source for that allegation?

We're just a few years after the ~60 cycle peak and likely the longer cycle (~200 years) is plateauing too.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs?orig_server=http://adsabs.harvard.edu&orig_bitmap=http://adsabs.harvard.edu&2005KFNT...21..471A

are all around. I suspect their numbers will increase as catastrophic events continue to occur, because fear tends to trigger our species' denial and minimization coping strategies.

Just yesterday, the guys with whom I work were pontificating about the "global warming myth." Look at the cold winter we had, ya'll!

--it causes too much cognitive dissonance, which they have no support for dealing with. I mean, who helps us cope with our knowledge of projected horrors? It IS a stressful thing to imagine. So group denial helps them sleep at night.

I'm OK with that, as long as they don't actively work against the efforts to address the problem. Maybe they could even support efforts to address it, just in case we might be right. (It's the practical thing to do anyway).

. but certainly worried.

But IMHO, the time we could have dealt with the CAUSES in a way effective enough to prevent the changes coming has passed, perhaps long ago.

Now it's just a matter of how we deal with the EFFECTS.

To help the people who are POTENTIALLY in the path of some as yet unseen climate disaster?

Well that's not going to happen. We cannot even pass an unemployment extension.

classy.

It just seems a bit optimistic to talk about saving the poor people on the other side of the world when we cannot even manage to take care of people here at home.

why should we even post about that?

is preparing to evacuate its entire population to Aotearoa (NZ). Granted, it's only 10,000, but still -- an entire nation wiped off the map.

Hundreds of millions are going to perish.

because I live in a beautiful, temperate climate with plenty of water.

Adios, my world.