U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.


Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.


He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.


As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.


Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.


″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.


UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.


Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.


Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.


https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0


The most important fact in this story is the date.

I'm not telling people what to believe. But always take predictions of doom with a grain of salt.

Point of order?

How is the prediction wrong, based on not combating this by the year 2000?

Did it claim these disasters would happen by the year 2000?

Or that the turning point is 2000?

Of course this was back at a time, based on predictions, but lets have a reality check here.

Is there prediction simple out a couple of decades on a turning point?

I mean the last few years have seen countless more forest fires, more severe wether etc and you say we should take that with a pinch of salt?

I would say that reasoning is simple being ignorant to reality and science

It was one previous timeframe

Which many anti-cvlaimte change predictions have constantly been wrong.

So why did you not provide balance?

Because you wanted to make a distorted view

Frankly, anyone making such a claim not to be concerned of the rising weather changes, is living in la la land

If it does happen, and it certainly seems to be in the early stages of those predictions, I'll find it a minor quibble if it was off by a few decades.

have a look at the post I made on the other thread on this

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:If it does happen, and it certainly seems to be in the early stages of those predictions, I'll find it a minor quibble if it was off by a few decades.

Hence its a ridiculous argument that does not factror a plus or minus on a timeframe

Some people want to continually bury their heads in the sands it seems

For fuck sake Didge, I sold my Range Rover, what else can I do ?

nicko wrote:For fuck sake Didge, I sold my Range Rover, what else can I do ?

Get a scooter mate....

Thor wrote:Point of order?

How is the prediction wrong, based on not combating this by the year 2000?

Did it claim these disasters would happen by the year 2000?

Or that the turning point is 2000?

Of course this was back at a time, based on predictions, but lets have a reality check here.

Is there prediction simple out a couple of decades on a turning point?

I mean the last few years have seen countless more forest fires, more severe wether etc and you say we should take that with a pinch of salt?

I would say that reasoning is simple being ignorant to reality and science

It was one previous timeframe

Which many anti-cvlaimte change predictions have constantly been wrong.

So why did you not provide balance?

Because you wanted to make a distorted view

Frankly, anyone making such a claim not to be concerned of the rising weather changes, is living in la la land

I didn't say not to be concerned, now did I?

Just to be wary of hyperbole.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:If it does happen, and it certainly seems to be in the early stages of those predictions, I'll find it a minor quibble if it was off by a few decades.

Then leave the time frames out of these predictions.

You can only cry wolf so many times.

But if you do that, you can't scare people good enough.

Got to instill fear to motivate people.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:Point of order?

How is the prediction wrong, based on not combating this by the year 2000?

Did it claim these disasters would happen by the year 2000?

Or that the turning point is 2000?

Of course this was back at a time, based on predictions, but lets have a reality check here.

Is there prediction simple out a couple of decades on a turning point?

I mean the last few years have seen countless more forest fires, more severe wether etc and you say we should take that with a pinch of salt?

I would say that reasoning is simple being ignorant to reality and science

It was one previous timeframe

Which many anti-cvlaimte change predictions have constantly been wrong.

So why did you not provide balance?

Because you wanted to make a distorted view

Frankly, anyone making such a claim not to be concerned of the rising weather changes, is living in la la land

I didn't say not to be concerned, now did I?

Just to be wary of hyperbole.

So you are contradicting yourself

What is hyperbole about the influence of humans are having in the increase of CO2 on the planet and the effects this has?

That even if we stopped all output of CO2 tomorrow. It would take thousands of years to fall back to the leves of the 17th century

So explain what is the hyperbole here?

We see increasingly each year severe weather changes

Is that hyperbole?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I didn't say not to be concerned, now did I?

Just to be wary of hyperbole.

So you are contradicting yourself

What is hyperbole about the influence of humans are having in the increase of CO2 on the planet and the effects this has?

That even if we stopped all output of CO2 tomorrow. It would take thousands of years to fall back to the leves of the 17th century

So explain what is the hyperbole here?

We see increasingly each year severe weather changes

Is that hyperbole?

You live in a black and white, binary world.

Me, not so much.

I believe that the climate is changing, that mankind has some affect on that, and that people bullshit and exaggerate about it at the same time.

The predictions in the link I posted were wrong.

It happens.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


So you are contradicting yourself

What is hyperbole about the influence of humans are having in the increase of CO2 on the planet and the effects this has?

That even if we stopped all output of CO2 tomorrow. It would take thousands of years to fall back to the leves of the 17th century

So explain what is the hyperbole here?

We see increasingly each year severe weather changes

Is that hyperbole?

You live in a black and white, binary world.

Me, not so much.

I believe that the climate is changing, that mankind has some affect on that, and that people bullshit and exaggerate about it at the same time.

The predictions in the link I posted were wrong.

It happens.  

You say I live binary and you based this on your own personal perception and not actually any science

That means your view is the one binary

Your view against science

I see and look at countless evidence and actually see the cause of effect of living through this

That is not binary

The predictions in the link were only claimed wrong by you on a timeframe of when it would be the cutoff point

That is called a prediction, which people get wrong, but is the actual prediction wrong to a point of no return?

I mean the view that you think humans have some effect is based on your views or actual science?

Its CO2 that is causing dramatic climate change and that is down to humans

For example what have you actually read about climate change?

I dont pretend to be an expert, but can at least read and understand collective data. Being as I have many years in risk analysis experince and plannning. That is not me trying to make an argument from authority. Its me understanding, that your claim, is based on your own beliefs and not actually looking at the science.

Your view is to dismiss a prediction, that in reality, you have not even proved wrong.

Is in reality the cut off point the year 2000?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You live in a black and white, binary world.

Me, not so much.

I believe that the climate is changing, that mankind has some affect on that, and that people bullshit and exaggerate about it at the same time.

The predictions in the link I posted were wrong.

It happens.  

You say I live binary and you based this on your own personal perception and not actually any science

That means your view is the one binary

Your view against science

I see and look at countless evidence and actually see the cause of effect of living through this

That is not binary

The predictions in the link were only claimed wrong by you on a timeframe of when it would be the cutoff point

That is called a prediction, which people get wrong, but is the actual prediction wrong to a point of no return?

I mean the view that you think humans have some effect is based on your views or actual science?

Its CO2 that is causing dramatic climate change and that is down to humans

For example what have you actually read about climate change?

I dont pretend to be an expert, but can at least read and understand collective data. Being as I have many years in risk analysis experince and plannning. That is not me trying to make an argument from authority. Its me understanding, that your claim, is based on your own beliefs and not actually looking at the science.

Your view is to dismiss a prediction, that in reality, you have not even proved wrong.

Is in reality the cut off point the year 2000?

Can you believe in climate change and the fact that people use climate change for political goals?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


You say I live binary and you based this on your own personal perception and not actually any science

That means your view is the one binary

Your view against science

I see and look at countless evidence and actually see the cause of effect of living through this

That is not binary

The predictions in the link were only claimed wrong by you on a timeframe of when it would be the cutoff point

That is called a prediction, which people get wrong, but is the actual prediction wrong to a point of no return?

I mean the view that you think humans have some effect is based on your views or actual science?

Its CO2 that is causing dramatic climate change and that is down to humans

For example what have you actually read about climate change?

I dont pretend to be an expert, but can at least read and understand collective data. Being as I have many years in risk analysis experince and plannning. That is not me trying to make an argument from authority. Its me understanding, that your claim, is based on your own beliefs and not actually looking at the science.

Your view is to dismiss a prediction, that in reality, you have not even proved wrong.

Is in reality the cut off point the year 2000?

Can you believe in climate change and the fact that people use climate change for political goals?

I think if you take more of a stance in people using climate change as a poilitical goal over actually the reality of humans causing the rising of CO2 levels.

Then you are seriously not concerned over the science and only concerned over your own political agenda. No matter the political side you come from

Does that help?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Can you believe in climate change and the fact that people use climate change for political goals?

I think if you take more of a stance in people using climate change as a poilitical goal over actually the reality of humans causing the rising of CO2 levels.

Then you are seriously not concerned over the science and only concerned over your own political agenda. No matter the political side you come from

Does that help?

Nope.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


I think if you take more of a stance in people using climate change as a poilitical goal over actually the reality of humans causing the rising of CO2 levels.

Then you are seriously not concerned over the science and only concerned over your own political agenda. No matter the political side you come from

Does that help?

Nope.  

Well i ask, do you believe in climate change, that is being cause by humans, with the rise of CO2?

That is number 1.

Number 2)

Whether you think politicians are using this as a weapon. Does that mean you should ignore the science on this and the potential problems?

Number 3)

Is your dislike of politicians, blinding you to actual science on climate change? T the view its your dislike of them, making you skeptical to science?

Does that help?

http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26487-educational-thread-on-global-warming#504541

have a watch...and then THINK on the implications ....

freeze or fry?

actually...if things are as the article seems to show...freezing is still an option just possibly not as bad as it might have been

Lord Foul wrote:http://www.newsfixboard.com/t26487-educational-thread-on-global-warming#504541

have a watch...and then THINK on the implications ....

freeze or fry?

Well that is a good point

We should be on the down turn of another ice age

As the levels of the sun is decreasing as it does based on cycles

What we see in fact is the tempreture rising

Its like saying that turning down a heater, will cause the tempreture to rise

agreed, BUT we are only just into the downturn on the first step of a long stair case.....

dont forget the temperature could fall 6 or more degrees at the lowest point....

It seems we have a choice of manhatten under a mile of ice or florida under 80 ft of water

Lord Foul wrote:agreed, BUT we are only just into the downturn  on the first step of a long stair case.....

dont forget the temperature could fall 6 or more degrees at the lowest point....

It seems we have a choice of manhatten under a mile of ice or florida under 80 ft of water

But and here is the big butt. We should be seeing a decrease in tempreture based on the solar activity of the sun in the last 4 decades

That solar activity is gradually decreasing as it does on cycles of solar input and orbits

We are  seeing the opposite in tempretures

So to say it could fall, is not even happennning

If it does, then you will then have a case

In fact its dramatically increaed mate

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nope.  

Well i ask, do you believe in climate change, that is being cause by humans, with the rise of CO2?

That is number 1.

Number 2)

Whether you think politicians are using this as a weapon. Does that mean you should ignore the science on this and the potential problems?

Number 3)

Is your dislike of politicians, blinding you to actual science on climate change? T the view its your dislike of them, making you skeptical to science?

Does that help?

How long does science give us until we are all dead?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Well i ask, do you believe in climate change, that is being cause by humans, with the rise of CO2?

That is number 1.

Number 2)

Whether you think politicians are using this as a weapon. Does that mean you should ignore the science on this and the potential problems?

Number 3)

Is your dislike of politicians, blinding you to actual science on climate change? T the view its your dislike of them, making you skeptical to science?

Does that help?

How long does science give us until we are all dead?

Depends on the condition of your body and also the element of luck, where you may end up in harms way

You could drop dead tomorrow

Science could never predict that in some cases

We can predict and understand the threat levels of terrorism to a state
So why you ask me such a unrelated question ios beyond me

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How long does science give us until we are all dead?

Depends on the condition of your body and also the element of luck, where you may end up in harms way

You could drop dead tomorrow

Science could never predict that in some cases

We can predict and understand the threat levels of terrorism to a state
So why you ask me such a unrelated question ios beyond me

Dead from climate change?

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Depends on the condition of your body and also the element of luck, where you may end up in harms way

You could drop dead tomorrow

Science could never predict that in some cases

We can predict and understand the threat levels of terrorism to a state
So why you ask me such a unrelated question ios beyond me

Dead from climate change?

Depends where you live?

Will it increase the possible chance your life is at risk?

In Texas, that is a given

Though your Libertarian views will leave you fucked, when needing aid

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Dead from climate change?

Depends where you live?

Will it increase the possible chance your life is at risk?

In Texas, that is a given

Though your Libertarian views will leave you fucked, when needing aid

Could you be a bit more precise? Surely there is a consensus amongst scientists how bad it is and when the wheels start falling off.

Do you think only aid comes from government?

I guess you weren't paying attention to Texans during Hurricane Harvey.

(and some mighty neighborly coonasses)

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:


Depends where you live?

Will it increase the possible chance your life is at risk?

In Texas, that is a given

Though your Libertarian views will leave you fucked, when needing aid

Could you be a bit more precise? Surely there is a consensus amongst scientists how bad it is and when the wheels start falling off.  

Do you think only aid comes from government?

I guess you weren't paying attention to Texans during Hurricane Harvey.

(and some mighty neighborly coonasses)  

I am basing this on your selfish Libertarian view point

Why should the rest of the US help Texas, if it becomes fucked?

Or why should the rest of the world do so, based on your small governement?

As its already happenning over the last view years with adverse weather changes

You see this is one area where your Libertarian views fail to understand. That once humans also nearly became extinct in the past. Our numbers dwindled to less than 10,000 world wide. If they had not helped each other and colloborated, they would have also become extinct

Its the biggest argument against your libertarian bullshit, so is countless other species, that help each other

As to how bad it is?

Its bad already

There is already a contigency plan to move the people from many Pacific islands. That are close to being engulfed by rising sea levels

So yes there is a concensus, that we are at or near the turning point. All depends now if we make this worse and place us over the edge

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Could you be a bit more precise? Surely there is a consensus amongst scientists how bad it is and when the wheels start falling off.  

Do you think only aid comes from government?

I guess you weren't paying attention to Texans during Hurricane Harvey.

(and some mighty neighborly coonasses)  

I am basing this on your selfish Libertarian view point

Why should the rest of the US help Texas, if it becomes fucked?

Or why should the rest of the world do so, based on your small governement?

As its already happenning over the last view years with adverse weather changes

You see this is one area where your Libertarian views fail to understand. That once humans also nearly became extinct in the past. Our numbers dwindled to less than 10,000 world wide. If they had not helped each other and colloborated, they would have also become extinct

Its the biggest argument against your libertarian bullshit, so is countless other species, that help each other

As to how bad it is?

Its bad already

There is already a contigency plan to move the people from many Pacific islands. That are close to being engulfed by rising sea levels

So yes there is a concensus, that we are at or near the turning point. All depends now if we make this worse and place us over the edge

Why did they help us during Hurricane Harvey?

I mean I'm not expecting any help from you. Apparently you need to be forced into helping others.

So basically, it's bad, but we don't know how bad, but I should probably go into panic mode, like I was told to do in 1989, 30 years ago.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

I am basing this on your selfish Libertarian view point

Why should the rest of the US help Texas, if it becomes fucked?

Or why should the rest of the world do so, based on your small governement?

As its already happenning over the last view years with adverse weather changes

You see this is one area where your Libertarian views fail to understand. That once humans also nearly became extinct in the past. Our numbers dwindled to less than 10,000 world wide. If they had not helped each other and colloborated, they would have also become extinct

Its the biggest argument against your libertarian bullshit, so is countless other species, that help each other

As to how bad it is?

Its bad already

There is already a contigency plan to move the people from many Pacific islands. That are close to being engulfed by rising sea levels

So yes there is a concensus, that we are at or near the turning point. All depends now if we make this worse and place us over the edge

Why did they help us during Hurricane Harvey?

I mean I'm not expecting any help from you. Apparently you need to be forced into helping others.

So basically, it's bad, but we don't know how bad, but I should probably go into panic mode, like I was told to do in 1989, 30 years ago.  

1) because they are not Libertarians like you, where in the reverse you would not help those who helped you

2) Wrong on every level, I actual give plenty to people who need help and want nothing in return, the biggest difference between me and you. Its not based on geography or politics, as it is with you

3) We know its bad and how bad it can get. Nobody is in panic mode. That will happen, when people like you wake up wondering why you never actually did listen to the scientists in the first place. When it is too late

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Why did they help us during Hurricane Harvey?

I mean I'm not expecting any help from you. Apparently you need to be forced into helping others.

So basically, it's bad, but we don't know how bad, but I should probably go into panic mode, like I was told to do in 1989, 30 years ago.  

1) because they are not Libertarians like you, where in the reverse you would not help those who helped you

2) Wrong on every level, I actual give plenty to people who need help and want nothing in return, the biggest difference between me and you. Its not based on geography or politics, as it is with you

3) We know its bad and how bad it can get. Nobody is in panic mode. That will happen, when people like you wake up wondering why you never actually did listen to the scientists in the first place. When it is too late

1 You don't know what libertarians believe. (no fucking surprise there)

2 I think you are full of shit.

3 So we should not be in panic mode? Good. Then you and I agree.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

1) because they are not Libertarians like you, where in the reverse you would not help those who helped you

2) Wrong on every level, I actual give plenty to people who need help and want nothing in return, the biggest difference between me and you. Its not based on geography or politics, as it is with you

3) We know its bad and how bad it can get. Nobody is in panic mode. That will happen, when people like you wake up wondering why you never actually did listen to the scientists in the first place. When it is too late

1 You don't know what libertarians believe. (no fucking surprise there)

2 I think you are full of shit.

3 So we should not be in panic mode?  Good. Then you and I agree.  

1) I do, they are inherantly selfish to their own beliefs, placing their needs above others

2) Good for you

3) Did I claim you need to panic? Or do I think people should be think rationality about the potential furture problems to resolve them in a calm rational manner.

Please tell me you have formulated contigencies before?

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

1 You don't know what libertarians believe. (no fucking surprise there)

2 I think you are full of shit.

3 So we should not be in panic mode?  Good. Then you and I agree.  

1) I do, they are inherantly selfish to their own beliefs, placing their needs above others

2) Good for you

3) Did I claim you need to panic? Or do I think people should be think rationality about the potential furture problems to resolve them in a calm rational manner.

Please tell me you have formulated contigencies before?

1 Wrong again (not fucking surprised)

2 Great for me.

3 Glad we agree that people telling us to panic are spewing nonsense.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

1) I do, they are inherantly selfish to their own beliefs, placing their needs above others

2) Good for you

3) Did I claim you need to panic? Or do I think people should be think rationality about the potential furture problems to resolve them in a calm rational manner.

Please tell me you have formulated contigencies before?

1 Wrong again (not fucking surprised)

2 Great for me.

3 Glad we agree that people telling us to panic are spewing nonsense.

1) So are you willing to share your taxes with the state in order to help others who need help, yes or no?

2) Excellent

3) Who is telling us to panic?  I think you imagined this? Most scientists will tell you of the potential problems and how we need to combat these issues. Panic never solves anything, as emotions are governing their thinking. Understanding issues and reocgnising their potential problems . Is what is required to tackle them

Its seems the problem here, is yourself, in not actually recognising the potential problems and you just want to ignore them

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

1 Wrong again (not fucking surprised)

2 Great for me.

3 Glad we agree that people telling us to panic are spewing nonsense.

1) So are you willing to share your taxes with the state in order to help others who need help, yes or no?

2) Excellent

3) Who is telling us to panic?  I think you imagined this? Most scientists will tell you of the potential problems and how we need to combat these issues. Panic never solves anything, as emotions are governing their thinking. Understanding issues and reocgnising their potential problems . Is what is required to tackle them

Its seems the problem here, is yourself, in not actually recognising the potential problems and you just want to ignore them

1 Does it matter if I'm willing to share my taxes? It's not like it's optional

2 Super excellent

3 Politicians are telling us to panic. Or at least we are reaching a point of no return. Like the folks that wrote this artice 30 years ago.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

1) So are you willing to share your taxes with the state in order to help others who need help, yes or no?

2) Excellent

3) Who is telling us to panic?  I think you imagined this? Most scientists will tell you of the potential problems and how we need to combat these issues. Panic never solves anything, as emotions are governing their thinking. Understanding issues and reocgnising their potential problems . Is what is required to tackle them

Its seems the problem here, is yourself, in not actually recognising the potential problems and you just want to ignore them

1 Does it matter if I'm willing to share my taxes? It's not like it's optional

2 Super excellent

3 Politicians are telling us to panic. Or at least we are reaching a point of no return. Like the folks that wrote this artice 30 years ago.  

1) Of course it does.

2) Are they?

3) Where is alll the people rioting and in panic in the streets? Like I say, its actually yourself that is the problem here. Not the politicians. You simple want to ignore the potential problems. Its as bad as your understanding of terrorist threat levels. You under play everything

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

1 Does it matter if I'm willing to share my taxes? It's not like it's optional

2 Super excellent

3 Politicians are telling us to panic. Or at least we are reaching a point of no return. Like the folks that wrote this artice 30 years ago.  

1) Of course it does.

2) Are they?

3) Where is alll the people rioting and in panic in the streets? Like I say, its actually yourself that is the problem here. Not the politicians. You simple want to ignore the potential problems. Its as bad as your understanding of terrorist threat levels. You under play everything

1 Why? It's not an option.

2 Triple super duper excellent.

3 Yes, I do tend to underplay threats. Or as I call it. Give them the attention they deserve.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

1) Of course it does.

2) Are they?

3) Where is alll the people rioting and in panic in the streets? Like I say, its actually yourself that is the problem here. Not the politicians. You simple want to ignore the potential problems. Its as bad as your understanding of terrorist threat levels. You under play everything

1 Why? It's not an option.

2 Triple super duper excellent.

3 Yes, I do tend to underplay threats. Or as I call it. Give them the attention they deserve.  

1) Why should yu not share your wealth in order to help others?

2) Exxxxcellent

3) Then i shall call you now Neville Chamberlain. He played down a threat once as well

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

1 Why? It's not an option.

2 Triple super duper excellent.

3 Yes, I do tend to underplay threats. Or as I call it. Give them the attention they deserve.  

1) Why should yu not share your wealth in order to help others?

2) Exxxxcellent

3) Then i shall call you now Neville Chamberlain. He played down a threat once as well

1 I didn't say I shouldn't

2 Bite me

3 And I shall call you Trump, as you overplay threats.

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

1) Why should yu not share your wealth in order to help others?

2) Exxxxcellent

3) Then i shall call you now Neville Chamberlain. He played down a threat once as well

1 I didn't say I shouldn't

2 Bite me

3 And I shall call you Trump, as you overplay threats.

1) Reall

2) No thanks

3) What threat have I overplayed? Or was this you. Not actually and properly understanding terrorist threat levels?

Night Neville  

Maddog wrote:

Thor wrote:

Maddog wrote:

How long does science give us until we are all dead?

Depends on the condition of your body and also the element of luck, where you may end up in harms way

You could drop dead tomorrow

Science could never predict that in some cases

We can predict and understand the threat levels of terrorism to a state
So why you ask me such a unrelated question ios beyond me

Dead from climate change?

it doesn't generally
there is the assumption that societies would collapse before then, which means so would the main sources of pollution.

there would be an apocalyptic wasteland for a bit, after a few centuries, maybe a millennia or 2, nature would start to bounce back and nature would start 'reclaiming the ruins' (although with a dramatic reduction in the number of species)  Assuming humans survived (fairly high chances since we are adapted to a wide climate range) they'd probably be back in the stone age.

The biggest causes of death will probably be human conflict, a lot of the human population lives close enough to a coast to be affected  by rising sea levels and coastal erosion. changing weather patterns means some previously bountiful farmland will go barren (although some barren land may become farm-able) even if it doesn't go barren it will become impossible to grow the traditional produce, agriculture takes time to adapt so there could easily be serve food shortages . Also melting ice caps means new resource deposits are become accessible while most deposits are reaching depletion ... all those are additional drivers of conflict.

So apart from the climate change refugees there will be more war refugees ... and we're doing a pretty shit job with the numbers we currently have

most of this is already unpreventable, it's how we deal with it.... if we just continue to make it worse we're fucked... we may already be fucked regardless of what we do from here.

veya_victaous wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Dead from climate change?

it doesn't generally
there is the assumption that societies would collapse before then, which means so would the main sources of pollution.

there would be an apocalyptic wasteland for a bit, after a few centuries, maybe a millennia or 2, nature would start to bounce back and nature would start 'reclaiming the ruins' (although with a dramatic reduction in the number of species)  Assuming humans survived (fairly high chances since we are adapted to a wide climate range) they'd probably be back in the stone age.

The biggest causes of death will probably be human conflict, a lot of the human population lives close enough to a coast to be affected  by rising sea levels and coastal erosion. changing weather patterns means some previously bountiful farmland will go barren (although some barren land may become farm-able) even if it doesn't go barren it will become impossible to grow the traditional produce, agriculture takes time to adapt so there could easily be serve food shortages . Also melting ice caps means new resource deposits are become accessible while most deposits are reaching depletion ... all those are additional drivers of conflict.

So apart from the climate change refugees there will be more war refugees ... and we're doing a pretty shit job with the numbers we currently have

most of this is already unpreventable, it's how we deal with it.... if we just continue to make it worse we're fucked... we may already be fucked regardless of what we do from here.

I saw that movie. Mel Gibson was in it. And I don't disagree with the premise. I don't disagree either.

I don't think we are fucked either.

I think we are 50 year old man with 135 over 90 BP.

It's a concern we need to alter our lifestyle a little and get it under control.