By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Shadow1980 said:
Slimebeast said:

lol "scientists warn that downtown Miami, Manhattan, New Orleans, the Maldives, and half of Bangladesh permanently under water". There's zero chance for that to happen with a sea level rise of one or two meter.

It's those kinds of ridiculous claims that in turn make the sceptic side reject everything.

Don't be obtuse. I was making a rhetorical point. Even if the evidence pointed towards certain disaster, conservatives would still reject it out of hand. Their approach to relative risks is all over the place. They worry about terrorists embedded in refugees fleeing a warzone, yet turn a blind eye towards scientists that warn that, should a worst-case scenario arise, it will be very costly in terms of infrastructure damage and millions of displaced people, among other potential impacts. There are a wide variety of projected scenarios, and the actual long-term consequences of global warming are where we have the least certainty. But rejecting not only the possibility of a worst-case scenario, but even the science itself, is not acceptable, I don't care what your opinion on taxation or regulation is. Apparently, we only prepare for the worst when dealing with brown people that have a different religion.

And a rise of two meters to sea levels is not inconsequential. Millions of people live in areas that would be threatened. Low-lying island nations like the Maldives and Tuvalu would be almost entirely submerged. Millions of people in Bangladesh live in areas low enough to be submerged or threatened. Many neighborhoods in coastal areas in the U.S. are less than two meters above sea level or close enough to be threatened by storm surges made worse by increasing sea levels. New Orleans is already below sea level, and incresing sea levels could put it at greater risk than it already is at.

And sea levels won't just stop growing after the end of this century, either. But it's easy to ignore problems that might not ever effect us, but will effect people that live long after we're dead. I guess you could take the apathetic "Not my problem. I'll be dead anyway." approach, despoil the environment for short-term gains in profit, and turn a blind eye towards the warnings of scientists, but such a position is morally indefensible and deserving of neither respect nor consideration. Every bit of evidence suggests that the world is warming and that we're the cause, and there's good reason to be concerned that rapid changes in climate could have many negative effects. It would be prudent to do something instead of sitting on our duffs and accusing climate scientists of being part of some global socialist conspiracy to destroy the economy.

Again, it's those ridiculous claims that are making sceptics reject everything.

You seriously talk about the risk of Southern Bangladesh or the pacific island of Tuvalu getting flooded in 50 to 80 years from now (I suppose you've never heard about flood control), while you are ridiculing people who are upset about the millions of victims to crime commited right now by foreigners from the third world. That's absurd.

That's complete moral corruption.