Author Topic: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!  (Read 92233 times)

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #50 on: May 03, 2016, 02:34:03 PM »


FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear.  As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.

Honest question:  Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants.  But I'm just armchair guessing here...

No, I dont know but is an interesting question.  I wonder how much of the security is really 'needed', was a level of security established to prevent any and all trespassing onto any part of the grounds where really it does not matter if Green-Peace can slap a bumper sticker onto a shed a mile from the reactor building.

Just to make sure we are 10000% OT   :-)
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #51 on: May 03, 2016, 04:10:41 PM »
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html


FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear.  As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.

Honest question:  Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants.  But I'm just armchair guessing here...

No, I dont know but is an interesting question.  I wonder how much of the security is really 'needed', was a level of security established to prevent any and all trespassing onto any part of the grounds where really it does not matter if Green-Peace can slap a bumper sticker onto a shed a mile from the reactor building.

Just to make sure we are 10000% OT   :-)
http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/All-News/2013/January/10/Secret-no-fly-zone

Ignoring security, accidents, nuclear weapons issues, and waste . . . The real problem with nuclear is fuel.  At current consumption rates for nuclear power we have about 80 years of fuel available.  Scaled up to world wide consumption we've got about 5 years.  There are some alternative theories about how we could extract more uranium from sea water, but they wouldn't stretch the supplies much longer.  At best, nuclear can function as a temporary stop gap while we figure something else out.  It can't be relied on long term.  http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #52 on: May 03, 2016, 04:22:15 PM »
Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.

Or open a scuba diving business.

TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.

AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.

Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...

Are you implying that you would enter another country illegally, then?

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #53 on: May 03, 2016, 04:46:07 PM »

Ignoring security, accidents, nuclear weapons issues, and waste . . . The real problem with nuclear is fuel.  At current consumption rates for nuclear power we have about 80 years of fuel available.  Scaled up to world wide consumption we've got about 5 years.  There are some alternative theories about how we could extract more uranium from sea water, but they wouldn't stretch the supplies much longer.  At best, nuclear can function as a temporary stop gap while we figure something else out.  It can't be relied on long term.  http://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html
Very interesting about the fuel limitations.
Upon reading the article I can't help but instantly question a lot of the author/article's conclusions.  For example, the idea that the replacement rate for 15,000 nuclear reactors is unrealistic.  You could find analogies with similar numbers, construction time and costs of many other things in the world, like skyscrapers, large bridges or dams. It doesn't matter that a new one needs to be built every day to replace the old ones, because hundreds are in the process of being built simultaneously all over the world.  It's just a question of scale.  Cars might last only ~14 years but we have no problem building 178,000 new ones every single day.
The accident rate is also overwhelmingly based on reactors built decades ago (e.g. Fukushima was commissioned in 1976, Chernobyl in '72 and 3 mile in '68).  That isn't to say accidents wouldn't still happen, but I doubt they'd happen anywhere close to the same frequency.

lr

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #54 on: May 03, 2016, 07:52:10 PM »
Quote
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."

...

As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

Your entire quote is an example of that social and economic advantage, dude. You were born in a country that engages in ridiculous international interventions that result in practically no abject poverty (like, third world, where your family dies of hunger, parasites, or war) and gives its citizens visas on-demand in most major countries.

Allow me to explain: if you're born in most of the world, you cannot legally enter other countries without demonstrating significant financial assets and going through a complicated application process and background checks.  So even educated middle-class people can't follow the laws, because the laws are designed to stop them from traveling.

(On the other hand, even a homeless, disheveled, half-braindead American can travel the world for the cost of a TV and not be arrested at the border. Amazingly, we even have words like "backpacking," which is when broke, jobless American college kids vagabond through other people's countries without even getting arrested or raped.)

If you do enter illegally, you're at significant risk of violence, exploitation, or incarceration, as well as death during the border crossings themselves. Even in the US, we imprison small children fleeing violence and pretend that they're competent to defend themselves alone in court proceedings in a foreign language.  http://www.npr.org/2014/08/14/340118824/young-migrants-may-request-asylum-but-its-hard-to-get

And if there's an emergency, like a famine or war, that forces many of you to evacuate your country all at once, you can be captured by soldiers by the tens of thousands and put into concentration camps, where you and your descendants will be held at gunpoint because no government cares enough to vouch for you. Here's a picture of such a camp: http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/10-Largest-refugee-camps.jpg

Thought exercise: If you were suddenly caught by soldiers during a border crossing and thrown into a tent city, what would you say? If it sounds anything like "I have rights, I'm an American," then that's your social and economic advantage right there.  Try saying, "I have rights, I'm Sudanese" and see what happens.

All of these people, the imprisoned children, the people trapped at gunpoint for decades, the people working menial labor under threat of deportation, the poor people who can't afford to travel but are having their nations sink, the people fleeing famines caused by droughts, are refugees. 

You may be a survivor, but thanks to your giant government subsidy, you'll probably never be a refugee. So be grateful.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Australia
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #55 on: May 03, 2016, 08:04:28 PM »
Quote
When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."

...

As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

Your entire quote is an example of that social and economic advantage, dude. You were born in a country that engages in ridiculous international interventions that result in practically no abject poverty (like, third world, where your family dies of hunger, parasites, or war) and gives its citizens visas on-demand in most major countries.

Allow me to explain: if you're born in most of the world, you cannot legally enter other countries without demonstrating significant financial assets and going through a complicated application process and background checks.  So even educated middle-class people can't follow the laws, because the laws are designed to stop them from traveling.

(On the other hand, even a homeless, disheveled, half-braindead American can travel the world for the cost of a TV and not be arrested at the border. Amazingly, we even have words like "backpacking," which is when broke, jobless American college kids vagabond through other people's countries without even getting arrested or raped.)

If you do enter illegally, you're at significant risk of violence, exploitation, or incarceration, as well as death during the border crossings themselves. Even in the US, we imprison small children fleeing violence and pretend that they're competent to defend themselves alone in court proceedings in a foreign language.  http://www.npr.org/2014/08/14/340118824/young-migrants-may-request-asylum-but-its-hard-to-get

And if there's an emergency, like a famine or war, that forces many of you to evacuate your country all at once, you can be captured by soldiers by the tens of thousands and put into concentration camps, where you and your descendants will be held at gunpoint because no government cares enough to vouch for you. Here's a picture of such a camp: http://www.borgenmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/10-Largest-refugee-camps.jpg

Thought exercise: If you were suddenly caught by soldiers during a border crossing and thrown into a tent city, what would you say? If it sounds anything like "I have rights, I'm an American," then that's your social and economic advantage right there.  Try saying, "I have rights, I'm Sudanese" and see what happens.

All of these people, the imprisoned children, the people trapped at gunpoint for decades, the people working menial labor under threat of deportation, the poor people who can't afford to travel but are having their nations sink, the people fleeing famines caused by droughts, are refugees. 

You may be a survivor, but thanks to your giant government subsidy, you'll probably never be a refugee. So be grateful.

**applause**

tonysemail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 718
  • Location: San Jose, CA
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #56 on: May 05, 2016, 03:56:11 PM »
here is a short article about a proposal to re-settle America's first climate refugees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/resettling-the-first-american-climate-refugees.html

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #57 on: May 05, 2016, 04:19:57 PM »
This forum came to mind today for me.  The comments that people should just leave there is not such thing as Climate refugees.

Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Currently the whole town, all 80000 people, are evacuated.  All be it they did not have to go to another country, but they are all refugees from their home town.

Now two points to make:

1.  OP - how was this supposed to be foreseen?  When should have those people left, knowing that this was going to happen?

2.  Alberta, and Canada have a very generous heart.  We step up to help those in need, often without regard for our own safety, or our own financial health.   Can anyone guess the first group of people to step up here?  It was a group of Syrian Refugees that settled in Calgary about 5 months ago.  They don't have much, but each gave $5 to help.  They did this because they know how hard it is to lose everything.

My point of mentioning point two is simple to get people to back off.  These refugees have come here as a last resort because they cant go home safely.  Back off and accept these people, I bet you will be surprised at what good they will do.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #58 on: May 05, 2016, 08:40:24 PM »
This forum came to mind today for me.  The comments that people should just leave there is not such thing as Climate refugees.

Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Currently the whole town, all 80000 people, are evacuated.  All be it they did not have to go to another country, but they are all refugees from their home town.

Now two points to make:

1.  OP - how was this supposed to be foreseen?  When should have those people left, knowing that this was going to happen?

2.  Alberta, and Canada have a very generous heart.  We step up to help those in need, often without regard for our own safety, or our own financial health.   Can anyone guess the first group of people to step up here?  It was a group of Syrian Refugees that settled in Calgary about 5 months ago.  They don't have much, but each gave $5 to help.  They did this because they know how hard it is to lose everything.

My point of mentioning point two is simple to get people to back off.  These refugees have come here as a last resort because they cant go home safely.  Back off and accept these people, I bet you will be surprised at what good they will do.

That's simply not true for the majority of these 'climate refugees'. The majority of the refugees moving into Europe are economic refugees, moving en masse towards the countries with the best social benefits like Sweden, Germany, and the UK. That doesn't scream people fleeing for safety, that's simple exploitation. If you were really concerned about the refugees, you'd stop the chaos at home killing them in the thousands in their home country, before making them trek thousands of miles through dangerous country with nothing but the clothes on their back. You're also contributing to the economic collapse of their home country as generations of able workers flee for better opportunities elsewhere, which adds to the poverty and strife.

I wish we'd stop generalizing and pulling at the heartstrings while encouraging hypocritical behavior. The simple fact is, YOU can donate as much of your money as you want to take care of these people. Feel free to be your moral voice in helping these people better themselves by taking your money. Other's don't want to use their tax-dollars to do so, and they shouldn't have to. Compassion is making a personal sacrifice, not forcing others to.

RosieTR

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Location: Northern CO
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #59 on: May 05, 2016, 08:54:08 PM »
I'm so proud of the folks on this forum! Y'all got an invitation to a troll party and turned it into a great discussion on both renewable energy and refugees of climate change! <smile>

AlanStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South East Virginia
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2016, 05:21:36 AM »
I want to be the first with a link to the obligatory for the OP: 

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2016, 09:53:51 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2016, 09:59:47 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2016, 10:20:58 AM »
Meanwhile at the Pentagon:
http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-national-implications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery

Quote
DoD recognizes the reality of climate change and the significant risk it poses to U.S.  interests globally. The National Security Strategy, issued in February 2015, is clear that climate change is an urgent and growing threat to our national security, contributing to increased natural disasters, refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources such as food and water.  These impacts are already occurring, and the scope, scale, and intensity of these impacts are projected to increase over time.

Increased wildfire risk including risk earlier in the year are a consistent feature of climate change predictions. Whether one specific incident is 100% attributable to climate change is debatable, but at the macro scale these types of events are more frequent. If every single event is treated as, "but this specific event may not be 100% climate change" misses the point. The climate change debate has been beaten to death many times on this forum, and is not worth redoing here.

As to the Syrian refugees... 470,000 people have been killed in a country of (originally) 22-23 million people. 1.9 million have been injured. That's ~10% of the population. 45% of the population has been displaced. The country is gutted and things continue to get worse.  If I could, I would run like hell from that, borders be damned. Many Syrians simply don't even have the resources and ability to get away from the destruction.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #64 on: May 06, 2016, 10:30:52 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997  Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc.  It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.

This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #65 on: May 06, 2016, 11:09:34 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997  Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc.  It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.

This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01660.x/full

As to things getting drier, the occurrence of hot/dry weather (which if repeated more frequently over time is a change in climate) is more important than if there is more/less precipitation. For example, in Washington the amount of precipitation is not expected to change much, or may actually increase slightly, but our spring will arrive earlier and our summers will be drier, which is associated with projected increased fire risk.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #66 on: May 06, 2016, 11:13:27 AM »
The weather here is much more unpredictable then it has ever been.  Massive rains and flooding, drought, record high temps, record low temps.  It has been weird to say the least. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #67 on: May 06, 2016, 11:17:49 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997  Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc.  It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.

This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.

I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'.  As you said, the weather varies from year to year.  On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer.  The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year      Anomaly °C    Anomaly °F
1    2015    0.90    1.62
2     2014    0.74    1.33
3    2010    0.70    1.26
4     2013    0.66    1.19
5    2005    0.65    1.17
6      1998    0.63    1.13
6    2009    0.63    1.13
8     2012    0.62    1.12
9    2003    0.61    1.10
9    2006    0.61    1.10
9    2007    0.61    1.10
12     2002    0.60    1.08
13    2004    0.57    1.03
13    2011    0.57    1.03
15     2001    0.54    0.97
15    2008    0.54    0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Notice how they're all pretty recent?  It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1533
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #68 on: May 06, 2016, 11:35:29 AM »
Question:  Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore?  You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"

Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant".    For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms.  When did saying "immigrant" become dirty?  Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words.  My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3619
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #69 on: May 06, 2016, 11:41:43 AM »
I'm so proud of the folks on this forum! Y'all got an invitation to a troll party and turned it into a great discussion on both renewable energy and refugees of climate change! <smile>
So much trollbait, indeed.

Question:  Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore?  You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"

Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant".    For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms.  When did saying "immigrant" become dirty?  Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words.  My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).
Do you have a problem with adding descriptive details, or do you think the additional details are somehow inaccurate in specific case(s)?
I don't think it's just PC shit, although that plays a role. Functional distinctions affect perception, which influences action. And so on.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #70 on: May 06, 2016, 11:45:55 AM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997  Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc.  It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.

This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.

I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'.  As you said, the weather varies from year to year.  On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer.  The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year      Anomaly °C    Anomaly °F
1    2015    0.90    1.62
2     2014    0.74    1.33
3    2010    0.70    1.26
4     2013    0.66    1.19
5    2005    0.65    1.17
6      1998    0.63    1.13
6    2009    0.63    1.13
8     2012    0.62    1.12
9    2003    0.61    1.10
9    2006    0.61    1.10
9    2007    0.61    1.10
12     2002    0.60    1.08
13    2004    0.57    1.03
13    2011    0.57    1.03
15     2001    0.54    0.97
15    2008    0.54    0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Notice how they're all pretty recent?  It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.

Hotter does not mean drier.  Weather will be impacted by higher temperatures, but stating that this forest fire was worse because of climate change is misleading.

And thank you Glenstache; it is an important point to make that even if average total rainfall does not change, the pattern of when and how it falls can massively impact burning, storm and crop growing conditions.  Looking at simple total rainfalls for the area would not reveal this; great catch.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #71 on: May 06, 2016, 12:03:36 PM »
Question:  Can't anyone be a plain, old "immigrant" anymore?  You know, like, "This place sucks--I'm outta here and going somewhere better!"

Everyone has to be special--"asylum-seeker", "refugee claimant", "foreign national", "undocumented migrant".    For Pete's sake many of these people don't speak fluent English so it certainly wasn't them that came up with these BS terms.  When did saying "immigrant" become dirty?  Immigrate/emigrate are decent old-standing words.  My relatives who cam over on the boats a long time ago weren't called, "malnourished potato-seekers" (who like beer).

Kaspian - I think this gets to the heart of our immigration policies.  If you plan to immigrate to most developed worlds, you need to show that you have a job or financial means not to be a burden on the society, typically for several years.  Often if you've been offered a job it can't displace a citizen's job (at least in theory).  Your place in line is determined by whether you have immediate family there, and if you have a sponsor, and your age and education level.
An immigrant by definition is someone who WANTS to go toward that particular country.  Most immigration policies are far from "open door"

In contrast, a refuge is someone simply wants to go AWAY from their country. By definition they feel  that they are unable to be protected by their home country.  It's a meaningful distinction from "Immigrant".  Anytime someone says they are a refuge the next question is: What are you fleeing FROM.  That's why we label them "Political/Economic/Climate/Ethnicity etc".

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #72 on: May 06, 2016, 01:04:06 PM »
In 2011, there were 10,249 wildfires caused by lightning, but 63,877 wildfires caused by human error (as reported to the National Interagency Fire Center). Humans cause the vast majority of wildfires. It makes sense that as the human population grows and expands you'll have more frequent wildfires. To claim that climate change is a dominant factor in wildfires is misleading.

I'd also like to point out that climate change has positive impacts on the environment that can and do deter wildfires. If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere plants will tend to grow larger, fuller, and greener. Plant growth has been surging as CO2 levels have risen. Higher temperature (outside of extremes) tends to lend itself towards increased plant growth as well.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #73 on: May 06, 2016, 01:20:15 PM »
Whether or not the first spark came from heaven or someone throwing a cigarette out of a car window, that's really beside the point . . . the current conditions of the local climate determine if a forest fire will spread.

Some in California would probably challenge the idea that climate change always leads to lush green plants and increased plant growth.

Kaspian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1533
  • Location: Canada
    • My Necronomicon of Badassity
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #74 on: May 06, 2016, 02:08:34 PM »
Do you have a problem with adding descriptive details, or do you think the additional details are somehow inaccurate in specific case(s)?
I don't think it's just PC shit, although that plays a role. Functional distinctions affect perception, which influences action. And so on.
I think they're definitely inaccurate in the majority of cases.  If we're going to use specific descriptors, then at least it should be include all truthful labels:

Question:  Why are you applying for status?
Answer:  Because I paid good money to be "people trafficked" into what I thought was a better place.

Human Trafficking: The Second Largest Industry in the World

These giant criminal enterprises are trolling everywhere from Russia, India, Pakistan, to Kazakhstan promising people a better life if they only just hand over their entire life's savings.  Total badness.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Land of Entrapment
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #75 on: May 06, 2016, 02:30:45 PM »
In 2011, there were 10,249 wildfires caused by lightning, but 63,877 wildfires caused by human error (as reported to the National Interagency Fire Center).


Slightly an aside, but I'm curious whether "human error" includes arson. Back in 2003 or thereabouts, there was a guy who went around with a blow torch, intentionally starting wildfires. Supposedly he was doing it because he was a fire fighter and wanted to ensure his job security.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #76 on: May 06, 2016, 02:54:25 PM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Canada has about 9,000 forest fires per year on average. In 2014 for example, there were 611 forest fires in Saskatchewan. This current fire just happened to hit a town instead of an isolated area where it would not have been newsworthy.

As to "record" high temps...they have no records older than 100 years and the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, so one warm day is statistically insignificant.

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #77 on: May 06, 2016, 02:56:24 PM »
Somewhere reasonably close to where is live(in the province next door), in a town of 80000 people called Ft. McMurray there current rages a forest fire.  Many reliable have suggested that the fire spread as fast and as early in the year as it did because of climate change.

Forest fires have been happening since forests have existed, so just because some people with an agenda blame this one on climate change, that doesn't make it true. If you haven't noticed yet, everything bad is now blamed on climate change.

Except they are becoming earlier and more sever due to the dry conditions that are happing now.  10 years ago it was unheard of to have a half a dozen fires in northern Saskatchewan by this time, and never a fire ban.  This year there are 113 in northern Saskatchewan and we have a province wide fire ban.... yesterday was +33 degrees Celsius here.  May fifth average is 15.  Record high is +33.2 set two years ago.  I am thinking that there is something more that just blaming negative here.

Don't forget warm, dry springs are weather, not climate. According to this report (Which goes back twenty years): http://bcwildfire.ca/history/summaryarchive.htm#1997  Severity is ebbing and flowing; '14 and was dry and bad, '13 was average, '12 was wet and mild, etc etc.  It also shows that late April and early May are not uncommon times to have forest fires in any given year.

This current incident is terrible, and certainly exacerbated by the weather, but I have not seen proof that Canada is getting statistically drier each year.

I agree that it's not possible to point to any single event and say 'yep, that's climate change'.  As you said, the weather varies from year to year.  On the whole though, across the Earth things are getting much warmer.  The warmest years Earth wide from 1880 to present read as follows:
Rank Year      Anomaly °C    Anomaly °F
1    2015    0.90    1.62
2     2014    0.74    1.33
3    2010    0.70    1.26
4     2013    0.66    1.19
5    2005    0.65    1.17
6      1998    0.63    1.13
6    2009    0.63    1.13
8     2012    0.62    1.12
9    2003    0.61    1.10
9    2006    0.61    1.10
9    2007    0.61    1.10
12     2002    0.60    1.08
13    2004    0.57    1.03
13    2011    0.57    1.03
15     2001    0.54    0.97
15    2008    0.54    0.97
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201513

Notice how they're all pretty recent?  It's not unreasonable to assume that this clear evidence of change will impact the weather.

Ah yes...the "adjusted" NOAA temperature data.

YK-Phil

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: Nayarit (Mexico)
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #78 on: May 06, 2016, 03:29:08 PM »
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least. 

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #79 on: May 06, 2016, 03:30:05 PM »
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.

HAHAHAHAHA

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 652
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #80 on: May 06, 2016, 04:30:56 PM »
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.

The 97% claim was debunked years ago by several sources....many of them smarter than you.

Without fail, it's always the alarmists who display the greatest lack of knowledge.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #81 on: May 06, 2016, 04:36:50 PM »
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.

97% of climate scientists do NOT think that human factors are significant. Most of the talk about climate change and the human contribution towards it are made by politicians, government agencies, activists, and scientists outside of the atmospheric science fields. They are not part of the UN's IPCC Working Group 1 or opposite skeptic scientists, who claim that there are a myriad of other potential causes that we don't yet understand, that work in the atmospheric sciences.

There is significant debate going on in the scientific community about these issues and they are still working on understanding the basics. Any push for curtailing the use of fossil fuels is premature and potentially harmful for the people that rely on cheap energy. Please, don't buy into the fear-mongering and demagoguery when contemplating policies that can potentially negatively impact the lives of millions. Emotional overreactions can have severe, negative consequences for the poor.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 768
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #82 on: May 06, 2016, 04:40:04 PM »
MMM is great, not only do we have FIRE experts with great financial advice for newbies like me, but we have the privilege of having a couple of members who are smarter and know much more about climate science than 97% of scientists who conclude, based on the available evidence, that climate change is not a hoax and the human factor is significant. Impressive to say the least.

The 97% claim was debunked years ago by several sources....many of them smarter than you.

Without fail, it's always the alarmists who display the greatest lack of knowledge.

NASA says differently.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

let me guess though NASA is biased some how.

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #83 on: May 06, 2016, 04:48:12 PM »
NASA says differently.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

let me guess though NASA is biased some how.

The fallacy of equivocation. Even looking at this from a lens of normalcy, 97% of scientists agreeing on ANYTHING is a skeptical claim all in itself.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #84 on: May 06, 2016, 04:57:47 PM »
NASA says differently.  http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

let me guess though NASA is biased some how.

The fallacy of equivocation. Even looking at this from a lens of normalcy, 97% of scientists agreeing on ANYTHING is a skeptical claim all in itself.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#9df4bf87187f

This is why I also have a deep distrust of: plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, an approximate age of the earth of 4.6 Ga, Maxwell's equations, etc. If a large number of scientists agree, it must be problematic. /sarcasm

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #85 on: May 06, 2016, 05:23:39 PM »
This is why I also have a deep distrust of: plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, an approximate age of the earth of 4.6 Ga, Maxwell's equations, etc. If a large number of scientists agree, it must be problematic. /sarcasm

Yup, that's why we continue to look into the factors underlying the science. We continue to study the causes behind shifts in plate tectonics, gravity, evolution, because we don't know everything. Welcome to the evolution of scientific theory and why challenging assumptions plays such a vital role.

The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 23129
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #86 on: May 06, 2016, 05:36:27 PM »
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.

I agree with you completely.  With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically.  Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3493
  • Age: 94
  • Location: Upper left corner
  • FI(lean) working on the "RE"
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #87 on: May 06, 2016, 06:45:28 PM »
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.

I agree with you completely.  With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically.  Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.

It is also frustrating to continually deal with skepticism from those who are smart and engaged, but ultimately do not have adequate knowledge of the subject to be effective skeptics. There is a distinction between actually being an informed skeptic who can make a contribution and being an opinionated skeptic without enough subject understanding to know if their skepticism is misunderstanding of the material or an actual flaw. A common thread on the climate science discussions is stovepipe style arguments in which a system is reduced to a single line of evidence to make a point (ie, CO2 makes plants grow more).   

I am not a climate scientist, but have been in their labs, and working with them for 20+years. I have watched them grapple with, test, and be incredible skeptical of every new idea coming out. The picture painted by some corners of the media as religious zealots is tough to stomach when you've seen the sense of purpose and desire to understand a difficult issue honestly first hand. 

Yaeger

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 758
  • Age: 41
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #88 on: May 06, 2016, 07:39:21 PM »
The public shouldn't be afraid of skeptics and challenges, it should be open to challenge. It might seem counter-intuitive, but nothing is more damaging to progress than groupthink.

I agree with you completely.  With the caveat that sceptical theories be treated scientifically.  Those who are are interested only in tearing down commonly accepted theories and are unable to provide stronger research to support a sceptical point of view should be derided for the crackpots that they are.

It is also frustrating to continually deal with skepticism from those who are smart and engaged, but ultimately do not have adequate knowledge of the subject to be effective skeptics. There is a distinction between actually being an informed skeptic who can make a contribution and being an opinionated skeptic without enough subject understanding to know if their skepticism is misunderstanding of the material or an actual flaw. A common thread on the climate science discussions is stovepipe style arguments in which a system is reduced to a single line of evidence to make a point (ie, CO2 makes plants grow more).   

I am not a climate scientist, but have been in their labs, and working with them for 20+years. I have watched them grapple with, test, and be incredible skeptical of every new idea coming out. The picture painted by some corners of the media as religious zealots is tough to stomach when you've seen the sense of purpose and desire to understand a difficult issue honestly first hand.

I agree with you. However, this is an issue that has reverberations throughout our entire society. If you're going to support public policy changes that restricts the use of carbon emissions in electrical power generation, for instance, this is a value-based balance between a WIDE range of positive and negative effect ranging from the availability of substitute technology, economics, the environment, fairness, etc.

Just to understand the problem a little more, in 100 years what be the effects of sea level change and temperature increase from purely man-made effects on the climate, discounting the natural climate change and assuming current trends remain unchanged?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5278
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!
« Reply #89 on: May 07, 2016, 04:40:19 AM »
I agree with you. However, this is an issue that has reverberations throughout our entire society. If you're going to support public policy changes that restricts the use of carbon emissions in electrical power generation, for instance, this is a value-based balance between a WIDE range of positive and negative effect ranging from the availability of substitute technology, economics, the environment, fairness, etc.

Just to understand the problem a little more, in 100 years what be the effects of sea level change and temperature increase from purely man-made effects on the climate, discounting the natural climate change and assuming current trends remain unchanged?

No one really knows what the effects will be. There are many predictions, but so far almost none of them have been observed. Storm activity is not increasing in severity or frequency, sea level rise is below prior expected levels and even temperature increases have not been as severe as predicted.  This could all come to pass, but it's a complex issue with so many variables that making predictions that far in advance is difficult.