Is climate change a problem?

The temperature is only rising by about 2 degrees.  I can survive a 2 degree temperature increase.

A two degree rise in global temperature would have far more effect than just making it feel a bit warmer. 

1. The sea level would rise about 15 feet. This means that hundreds of coastal cities would be under water.

2. Extreme weather events would increase in frequency and strength. These include hurricanes, heat waves and blizzards.

3. The ocean would increase in acidity due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. This would effect coral reefs.

4. All the above would have profound effect on the ecosystem, changing the the migration patterns of animals, for instance. Diseases now found only in the tropics would spread to the upper latitudes. 

Don't be so sure- it's going to get hairy.  For perspective, the difference in avg. temp between the last ice age and 1970 was 4 degrees- those changes caused some major transformations- the English Channel was caused by that degree change, for example.  Some changes caused major adjustments in human populations.    Now we've popped up another degree in a few short years and looking to tack on another even faster.  We know that life on Earth has survived hotter periods but we're heading into extremes of temperature and rapid shifts to the environment.  We don't know whether we can preserve a sufficiently complex biosphere to support large apex animals.  2 degrees is expected to mean the extinction of most coral species- the death of which will translate into a cascade of extinctions in animal populations entirely adapted to coral reefs.  We are watching to see if the Atlantic jet stream halts- an event that would transform all Atlantic environments and populations pretty dramatically.  Expect migrations of nations of people that dwarf all previous migrations.

The hidden elephant in the room is that the more the planet becomes overpopulated by humans, the less is our ability as a species to adapt to climate changes. Although humans arguably may be the most adaptable species on the planet, the general rule in nature holds true: that when the population of a species is critically high or critically low, the species become less responsive to adapting to a changing environment. 

Just about the only point I can agree on in the crazy AOC green deal crowd is that we have too many people on the planet.

Climate change WILL happen with or without human intervention, and our technology is insufficient to terraform the planet and normalize the climate.

The human population won't be able to maintain its current level of population if the planet goes through a major climate shift as scientists have seen in the Earth's past.

Scientists haven't seen this type of climate change before, that's what you and the other Ostriches refuse to accept.

The Earth is far older than any scientist you know.

Well don't pretend to present what they say you numpty.

Give the goldfish back it's attention span.

1. The flooding of cities can be solved by building a 20 ft barrier on the US's eastern and Western borders to keep the Ocean out.  It works pretty well in areas that receive seasonal flooding.  I went to this town that bordered the Mississippi river and they had seasonal flooding.  So they built a barrier to keep the flood waters from affecting the town.

2. How much would natural disasters increase by?  If it's just 1%, then it's not a big extra problem.

3. I imagine the coral reefs might actually benefit because they convert CO2 into energy and the CO2 would be easier to get in an Ocean with 150 ppm extra CO2.

4. To a small extent, this is true.  Diseases now found within 10 degrees of the equator may spread to 15 degrees within the equator.  I also don't know if disease is because of temperature as much as it is with poverty.  Australia is warm and close to the equator and they don't have many diseases there because it is a 1st world country.

Disease has population density as a much greater factor for spread than any level of climate change.

Uncontrolled migration is the next factor.

If population density were the sole cause of disease, then middle aged Europe which had a low population density would have much less disease then the modern world, with all the people that live in it.  But Europe has less disease now then it did then due to the wealth differences between the middle ages and today.

It's not a cause for disease, it's a factor in the speed of the spread. The Black Death affected city centers more than rural areas.

they say that farmer would have to also deal with a lot more drought. that's bad for them, and bad for the food supply so it's bad for everyone else too. 

They can irrigate their crops, thereby making the water getting to the crops more controlled and therefore increasing our food supply.

What are you talking about?

I will take off your clothes, fuck you good and proper to intense orgasm and back and then when you say 'it's getting hot in here!' I will end the fucking world in a NASA-fairytale supernova.

In all seriousness, global warming is real, but it's also natural for the climate to change. These things are not mutually exclusive and whether or not it's man-made in high proportions, we should do everything we can to slow down the unwanted change or we'll end up like other extinct species that couldn't adapt to the climate-change and couldn't stop it either.

LOL!  The dark web of democratic conspiracy is beginnning to crack. GParrots concession to human population problem is a good sign even it is 30 years to late climbing on board the enlightenment ship, that set sail with;

----pre petroleum boom---

> native indigenous indians of North America { 16,000 years of ecological considerations }

> John Muir { ecological  awarness }

> Theodore Roosvelt { national parks }

---post petroleum boom----

> Bucky Fuller { doing more with less }

> Green Movement { Paul Ehrlich "The Population Bomb }

> EPAgency { back to the earth/garden -- anti-littter commercials }

> Barry Commoner{ ecological consciousness -- No Nukes }

> "think globally act locally" { 1990's }

> Ecofeminism{ extension of GAIA --Lovelock }

> Global Climate Action Summit

> ? ? ? 

History repeat itself.  Old news that humans have not learned from.

Only differrence is, now were talking global scales of your above.

Free market barbarian{ brain and butt forward } mindset still rules, rather than cooperative wholistic{ mind and soul } mindset.

The free market barbarians only want to save our souls from the devil, rather than,

enlighten our souls to ecologically environmental options of survival with the least amount of sufferring.

It is the old story of brain{ brawn } over mind { intellect }.

And the ignorant  goldfish sits by awaiting an unforseen death from its the oncoming tainting of enviroment as warming, polluted waters via direct affects of human activities.

The non-taintied { pure } goldfish  sees out of its glass aquarium yet the goldfish has no grasp of oxygen, morals and intellect.

Humans  look in the mirror and recognises self { ego * i * }.

Some humans look beyond the mirror and anticipate their short and long term actions, non-actions and needs to maintain the ecological environment that sustains them.

Not every culture is as advanced as Israel.

I guess one positive thing about natural or man made climate change is that it will help cull out the backwards cultures on the planet.

not everyone can afford to irrigate

droughts in the third world would cause starvation

Yep. The culling of backwards cultures by nature is a very real thing.

America doesn't have much time left you're saying.

12 years according to AOC.

That guinea pig has an IQ that is triple yours.

Don't insult AOC like that.

the term is a red herring and fear mongering imo, hence the controversy and arguments, let's make it more plain and address what needs to be addressed.  Remember acid rain?  Crystal clear lakes because everything in them was dead.  Air pollution is a real thing so is water quality, California has eight of 10 most polluted U.S. cities there's no real controversy with wanting better air and water quality I don't think.  Since those things are harmful and measurable that should be the point of attack, which when addressed also addresses the red herring.

climate change is pure political b.s.

Only because there is no conclusive science behind the damage calculation predictions due to climate change, whereas science can clearly calculate the damage due to acid rain.

You have some scientists saying the planet will be destroyed in 12 years and others saying the damage will be minimal.

so it begs the question, why not approach these measurable problems individually rather than some esoteric umbrella statement, not like you can force other countries to comply w/o the threat of bombs.  The money wasted on "climate change" "global warming" which could have been used in meaningful and productive ways for cleaner air and water.  Other than a way to keep people divided I see no use in their focus and terminology.