Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[dmlfarmer]

...Therefore it would seem to me that the 2 most important things that governments around the world should be doing are first identifying coastal populations most at risk from the rise in sea levels and relocating them and second is adaptation to the higher temperatures, looking at our food sources, water sources, housing and public infrastructure and how they will need to change to cope with this different climate...

If sea levels rise just 6 feet, 650 million people will be displaced globablly. Who is going to pay for all this relocation and the costs of adaptation? We know for sure no one is willing to see an increase in taxes to deal with climate change so where does the money come from Hamlock and Jazz if that is what we should be doing? Who funds research into adaptation you call for? You don't trust governments to do it, reading the posts it sounds like many feel all scientists are l on the take and fake the research, and big business are stealing all your profits so how are we know how to adapt. You think illegal immigration is bad today, wait until hundreds of millions of people lose their homes due to flooding and they have no where to go.

Are we at the point of no return as you claim I am stating? I don't know, that it why I have asked numerous times what the effect of our current CO2 levels will have on temperature, precipitation, and human society and not a single person has responded. You demand facts, well the fact is ever since man has walked the earth we have never had over 300ppm of CO2; a fact that is either lost on you or you choose to ignore. Jazz claims no problem because prehistoric levels were even higher, but what would society today look like on a world that has lost most of the current coastline? The prairies were a shallow inland sea that that time to. Another point lost on Jazz.

My greatest fear is if we continue to ignore and deny a very real problem, society is going to impose solutions that are possibly even worse than the problem.

[blackpowder]

Reminds me of my last girlfriend.

[jazz]

Don't fall for dml psudo stats whipped up by ivory tower research boys working with your money. These are the guys that will watch lab mice run through mazes for a decade. The science community exists 100% on the public dime and they needed a steady flow of research money so they can do more mouse experiments. What better thing to cook up than a bogus climate emergency based on the most thin unverifiable science there is.

Thee were times when the earth had 4000 ppm CO2 and here it still is. Somehow ice ages happened after those levels. Where did the CO2 go. Right, the earth is not a closed system, it is non linear and chaotic at the same time. It CAN NEVER be modelled accurately. 1.5deg is well within the natural variation of such system.

If it were a dire emergency then we would be evacuating those coasts and encouraging people to move inland even paying them to do so. Not happening because its not real. Its just a shame tax grab and wealth distribution all rolled into one.

[farming101]

exactly Hamloc, exactly....

[Hamloc]

Tell me Hamloc, if you put a large pot of water on your stove to boil and turn the burner on, does the water instantly boil? So if you do not expect instant boiling when heating a pot of water, why do you think it is a valid argument that the earth must instantly heat to the level of 20 million years ago as CO2 increases to that level over just the few decades.

Let me get this straight, I reread your earlier post, paraphrased you said that the last time the earth was over 400 ppm was 20 million years ago. I misquoted you because you actually said ocean levels were 250 feet higher and average temps 3 to 6 degrees higher. From your above response you obviously believe that similar levels are in our future. Even if all the nations who signed on to the Paris accord achieve the agreed to reductions, C02 levels will continue to rise. Therefore it would seem to me that the 2 most important things that governments around the world should be doing are first identifying coastal populations most at risk from the rise in sea levels and relocating them and second is adaptation to the higher temperatures, looking at our food sources, water sources, housing and public infrastructure and how they will need to change to cope with this different climate. Let's compare that to what the present progressive message is. You have said over 400 pm 3-6 degree temp rise, what the progressive's say, we must get to 0 C02 emissions by 2050 to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. According to your historical data we already have enough C02 in the atmosphere to far exceed 1.5 degrees. Do you see the contradiction? According to you historical data we are already to the point where planning for adaption is what we should be doing!

[grassfarmer]

Guess the deniers can buy up all the cheap coastal property. 👍

Who are the deniers? the guys that post a 14 day forecast where daytime temps are below average on 1 day, on average on 6 and above average on 7 - and above average on all 14 nights and imply it's a cold spell because there is only one 30C day in the forecast? With logic like that it's no wonder you don't worry about an increasing global temperatures!

[flea beetle]

How do you hot link?

[flea beetle]

https://youtu.be/gJwayalLpYY

Enough said.

[flea beetle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCM2RyTZttc

[seldomseen]

Chuck,Dml and Grass You guy seem to know this climate stuff good and have all the hard facts will you not answer my question?

How much will a carbon tax on Canadians lower that 410 C02 number and how long will it take before that number starts falling?