You can go to realclimate.org. They have articles on all of those topics written by actual climate scientists and not nasal pundits who think a wet vagina is a disease.
Unless we take immediate action, much of the planet will become unlivable.
It seems like "much" is doing a lot of work here. Lots of the planet will remain livable. The problem isn't that it might be entirely impossible to live somewhere at all. The problem is that all our long-standing adaptations for living in one place or another have a large chance of becoming maladaptive as the environment changes.
It's like, lots of people live in the Mississippi valley even though floods happen there fairly regularly. But we've made regulations for how close someone can build to the rivers and there are flood mitigation requirements if you're going to build below a certain elevation, etc.
But if the Mississippi valley's rainfall were to land on Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia, those areas don't have building codes that keep people safe and mitigate human injury and loss of life. People don't have long-standing habits of penning their livestock on the hill, just in case.
In short, even if it's still possible to live in an area, if the cost of rebuilding structures and reorganizing your society and even your own personal habits are more extreme than the costs of picking up and moving to someplace whose climate resembles the one you had before the change, one that feels like home, why wouldn't you spend less money to just up and leave?
When the land that people are living on gets submerged beneath the ocean, yes. It's unlivable. When Jordan gets heavy rains, their floods aren't slow-moving disasters you can avoid because you don't have high-organic soils that sponge up water before an excess is reached. You have rocks and hard soils that send the water rushing downhill in a flash flood that looks nothing like a Mississippi flood. And if that's the new normal the new climate for that area, then fine. In 500 years the vegetation will have adapted and you'll get high-organic spongey soils and slow floods and homes built where they can survive the rains. But right now flash floods and landslides feel like disasters you just have to flee.
So, sure, some land will end up unlivable. But we'll still have enough land to live on, and if we wanted to, we could still build floating homes & communities. The problem isn't literal planetary-wide sterilization. Talking about the earth as being unlivable on much of its surface is, I think, unhelpful.
The problem is that a lot of prime real estate is going to be no longer prime, and some of it on the coasts is going to disappear altogether. Meanwhile, the climate changes mean that the crops and livestock that have flourished in a region are no longer suitable for that region. If you want to have anything like the same lifestyle, you may very well have to pick up and move.
And when you have 2 or 3 billion people on the move, even if the arctic gets a bit warmer or the Sahara ends up wetter and greener (which we don't know will happen), the people and governments that own the land to which people want to move won't just want to give it up, and the land that people are fleeing (if it isn't underwater) is going to see its real estate prices plummet, so people can't just sell the old land for the cost of new.
It's an understanding of human psychology and observation of other refugee crises that make this such an emergency. We are well and truly fucked already because the climate change is resulting in people simply not knowing how to live in the places that they've always lived. If we had massive water desalinization and near-infinite carbon-neutral energy, we could air-condition the nuclear-hot places like Doha (which is expected to regularly reach 50 degrees (122 for you Fahrenheitists). We could warm huge apartment blocks in Manitoba. We could irrigate Peru.
But we don't currently have the tech to purify water on the scale required to keep growing crops where we've always grown them, or the power to keep people comfortable as the weather changes.
People are going to get desperate, and they're going to overrun borders. They're going to flee floods and tornadoes and drought. And we will be faced with the choice of murdering them or taking them in even as we are relocating US residents from the Gulf Coast and Canadian residents from the Maritimes and BC.
Maybe we'll create the tech we need in time, but not if we treat these otherwise-inevitable horrors as mere potentialities to be dismissed until realized. Calling it a climate emergency now is what we have to do so we don't end up with waterwars and refugee genocides in 20 years.
A close friend of ours had the same argument--Climate change exists, but we'll figure out how to survive without actually addressing the problem. Not sure we'd still be friends, if he were still alive.
I highly recommend researching in detail each of those topics before concluding human CO2 production is the leading cause of rises in average global temperature.
Claims made without providing sources, merely instructing others to "do research."Then demands sources and when given them yelps those aren't sources.Fuckin' dumbass gonna fuckin' dumbass, I guess.
I read about that last year, as some of the bazillionaires were buying silos, or islands, or constructing huge fortified compounds in the middle of nowhere to prepare for Armageddon.
I had one of those too. A 'We'll solve it. We solve everything' type. He is very smart and very emotionally delayed. He is a mass of contradictions, Poster of Janis Joplin and Grace Slick & liked the Iraq War because, "We're fighting the terrorists". We aren't friends anymore due to major arguments.
That wouldn't go over well with his target audience. "Own the libs" is the prime directive for any ambitious right wing media talker. That's why 50% of male Republicans polled won't get vaccinated. It would NOT do to have government or the Dems come to the rescue over problems no matter how devastating.
You can go to realclimate.org. They have articles on all of those topics written by actual climate scientists and not nasal pundits who think a wet vagina is a disease.
So in other words your response boils down to:
"I don't know. Look it up."
Got it. Real convincing.
You asked for a source, they gave you one. You didn't ask to be convinced, because you know you've already dug in.
He did not provide a source. He might as well have said:
"I don't know. Look it up on Wikipedia."
The best line (in my opinion) from that episode would also perfectly encapsulate Mr. Shapiro:"Joke's on you - I don't have any friends!"
Unless we take immediate action, much of the planet will become unlivable.
It seems like "much" is doing a lot of work here. Lots of the planet will remain livable. The problem isn't that it might be entirely impossible to live somewhere at all. The problem is that all our long-standing adaptations for living in one place or another have a large chance of becoming maladaptive as the environment changes.
It's like, lots of people live in the Mississippi valley even though floods happen there fairly regularly. But we've made regulations for how close someone can build to the rivers and there are flood mitigation requirements if you're going to build below a certain elevation, etc.
But if the Mississippi valley's rainfall were to land on Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia, those areas don't have building codes that keep people safe and mitigate human injury and loss of life. People don't have long-standing habits of penning their livestock on the hill, just in case.
In short, even if it's still possible to live in an area, if the cost of rebuilding structures and reorganizing your society and even your own personal habits are more extreme than the costs of picking up and moving to someplace whose climate resembles the one you had before the change, one that feels like home, why wouldn't you spend less money to just up and leave?
When the land that people are living on gets submerged beneath the ocean, yes. It's unlivable. When Jordan gets heavy rains, their floods aren't slow-moving disasters you can avoid because you don't have high-organic soils that sponge up water before an excess is reached. You have rocks and hard soils that send the water rushing downhill in a flash flood that looks nothing like a Mississippi flood. And if that's the new normal the new climate for that area, then fine. In 500 years the vegetation will have adapted and you'll get high-organic spongey soils and slow floods and homes built where they can survive the rains. But right now flash floods and landslides feel like disasters you just have to flee.
So, sure, some land will end up unlivable. But we'll still have enough land to live on, and if we wanted to, we could still build floating homes & communities. The problem isn't literal planetary-wide sterilization. Talking about the earth as being unlivable on much of its surface is, I think, unhelpful.
The problem is that a lot of prime real estate is going to be no longer prime, and some of it on the coasts is going to disappear altogether. Meanwhile, the climate changes mean that the crops and livestock that have flourished in a region are no longer suitable for that region. If you want to have anything like the same lifestyle, you may very well have to pick up and move.
And when you have 2 or 3 billion people on the move, even if the arctic gets a bit warmer or the Sahara ends up wetter and greener (which we don't know will happen), the people and governments that own the land to which people want to move won't just want to give it up, and the land that people are fleeing (if it isn't underwater) is going to see its real estate prices plummet, so people can't just sell the old land for the cost of new.
It's an understanding of human psychology and observation of other refugee crises that make this such an emergency. We are well and truly fucked already because the climate change is resulting in people simply not knowing how to live in the places that they've always lived. If we had massive water desalinization and near-infinite carbon-neutral energy, we could air-condition the nuclear-hot places like Doha (which is expected to regularly reach 50 degrees (122 for you Fahrenheitists). We could warm huge apartment blocks in Manitoba. We could irrigate Peru.
But we don't currently have the tech to purify water on the scale required to keep growing crops where we've always grown them, or the power to keep people comfortable as the weather changes.
People are going to get desperate, and they're going to overrun borders. They're going to flee floods and tornadoes and drought. And we will be faced with the choice of murdering them or taking them in even as we are relocating US residents from the Gulf Coast and Canadian residents from the Maritimes and BC.
Maybe we'll create the tech we need in time, but not if we treat these otherwise-inevitable horrors as mere potentialities to be dismissed until realized. Calling it a climate emergency now is what we have to do so we don't end up with waterwars and refugee genocides in 20 years.
It’s not my job to do your homework for you. This is a comments board, not a college lecture. If you want to learn, you know where to look now.
It Wikipedia was written by climate scientists, you’d almost have a point.
Jersey City, Hoboken...get ready for Water World.
He's also said that if your house goes underwater you can just buy another.
They're going to need some serious civil engineering to flood Hialeah, but I have faith in their evil intentions.
I was in Hoboken a few years back when there was 4 feet of water in the commuter rail parking lot...
A close friend of ours had the same argument--Climate change exists, but we'll figure out how to survive without actually addressing the problem. Not sure we'd still be friends, if he were still alive.
I highly recommend researching in detail each of those topics before concluding human CO2 production is the leading cause of rises in average global temperature.
Claims made without providing sources, merely instructing others to "do research."Then demands sources and when given them yelps those aren't sources.Fuckin' dumbass gonna fuckin' dumbass, I guess.
I read about that last year, as some of the bazillionaires were buying silos, or islands, or constructing huge fortified compounds in the middle of nowhere to prepare for Armageddon.
I had one of those too. A 'We'll solve it. We solve everything' type. He is very smart and very emotionally delayed. He is a mass of contradictions, Poster of Janis Joplin and Grace Slick & liked the Iraq War because, "We're fighting the terrorists". We aren't friends anymore due to major arguments.
That wouldn't go over well with his target audience. "Own the libs" is the prime directive for any ambitious right wing media talker. That's why 50% of male Republicans polled won't get vaccinated. It would NOT do to have government or the Dems come to the rescue over problems no matter how devastating.