Well, this is not good news, if it's even news at all, by now. 350 parts per million of atmospheric carbon dioxide is thought to be the safe upper limit before catastrophic climate change starts to happen: “rising sea levels, drought, violent storms.”
And look, you don't need to believe the worst case scenarios, although frankly the best-case scenarios for the coming century are pretty awful too.
What if — in spite of the available evidence — you don't feel climate change is likely?
Well … we don't have airline security lines because it's likely that a terrorist is coming on board your plane. We don't wear our seatbelts because it's likely that we'll get in an accident. Taking the precaution is worthwhile, because if (God forbid) something bad were to happen, it would be a price too large to pay.
Would we want this to happen? Tufts/BU study from five years ago:
WASHINGTON — By the end of this century, global warming threatens to raise the sea level enough that a heavy storm would send flood waters into Boston's downtown waterfront, the Financial District, and much of the Back Bay, based on projections in a federally funded report to be released today.
The five-year study, commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency and completed by university researchers, indicates that the mildest impact of global warming would leave local landmarks such as Massachusetts General Hospital, the Public Garden, the Esplanade, and MIT in a pool of water after a strong storm surge in the harbor.
We take all manner of precautions for terrorism; why don't we do the same for climate change?
Have I mentioned that Tufts grad Scott Brown's numbers are (617) 565-3170, or (202) 224-4543?
Sen. Brown — support a carbon cap that gets us down to 350ppm by 2050 … and be my hero. 100% seriously.
But modeling salvation after Ken Lay’s Enron Carbon Scamming model of financial scamnation is just not going to “fix” things for the majority amount of people.
<
p>I happen to “like Ike” because he was the last president who warned us all about the military-industrial complex.
bio-plagues, nano-tech, frankenfoods, manufactured racial divisions and disruptive engineered financial disasters black holes in the ocean or geo-engineered chemtail spraying of the atmosphere.
Sound familiar?
What are “we” not doing to ensure the survivability of a majority of the formerly American population.
<
p>We are NOT promoting local farming or localized food production but instead mega city carbon gulag type future dystoptian lifestyles.
<
p>Why not bring your Tide bottle back to the supermarket for a refill once it is in the automated refill dispenser. Hey, we have 27 ways to “communicate” with other people yet no real humans ever answer the frigging phone anymore.
<
p>Dick Cheney’s “1% doctrine” comes to mind, where he said that if there was even a 1% chance that Iraq had WMD, that it was worth invading. Is there a 1% chance that climate change is happening due to man-made activity?
…there is not a 1% chance of climate change being man-made; it is in fact MUCH higher than that:)
Active volcanoes product many dangerous gasses. If these gases didn’t vent to the atmosphere the volcano could be blocked. Nature has a violent way of clearing the blockage.
<
p>Measuring the amounts of gases in the atmosphere near a volcano will, naturally, include the volcanic gases which will skew any results toward the inclusion of volcanic gases. When the mechanic does your auto inspection he places the probe in the exhaust to measure the exhaust gases, not in the open air, which would skew the results.
<
p>The amount of gases produced worldwide is unclear. More submarine volcanoes are being found as the oceans and ice caps reveal their secrets. It is unknown how much dissolved gases exist in the bottom of lakes and oceans.
The lack of response to this clear and present danger is a scandal. As I have mentioned previously a staffer for Senator Brown could not tell me whether the Senator believes global warming is real. (There is no reason to believe that the staffer would have given a different answer to a question about whether he believes it is likely: she simply had no idea.)
<
p>At what point will countries begin to seriously discuss carbon tariffs or carbon taxes on exports from countries that refuse to cap emissions? I realize this would pose a serious challenge to the WTO.
is the right way to think about this, just like car seats for kids.
<
p>However, most people are incapable of really caring about outcomes that are as remote and contingent as the potential outcomes of global warming.
<
p>Most people who favor government intervention to stop global climate change favor government intervention in the economy for any reason or no reason at all. They’re just pro-intervention in general.
<
p>And most people opposed to intervention in the economy to stop glaobal warming generally oppose intervention by government regardless of the rationale advanced.