The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[oil pan 4]

And people can be voted off the island.

I have observed that stupid, crazy and poor people tend to breed the most. With the stupid/poor combination being most prolific.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I wasn't talking about artic ice. I was specifically talking about ant-artic ice.

We have told you multiple times the ipcc announcement about overestimating the effects of CO2 is easy to search for on bing.
I have linked it multiple times but you chose to ignore it.
So just continue to pretend like it never happened.

If the artic ice volume is down 80% then why is my old house at Langley (in Virginia) not under water?
I like how all this ice melts and there is almost no measurable change in sea level.
I thought the big worry was the ice was going to melt and displace something like 70% of the entire world's population?
And that's not going to happen now so what's the panic?
Another question, if the earth is warming so much why is it only effecting one side of the planet?

What if this is what the artic has always done?

The Antarctic ice has dropped from a record HIGH in 2014 to a record low just 4 years later. This is HUGE! To have that kind of turnaround is staggering!

You are misunderstanding what "the effects" of carbon dioxide are. If anything, the IPCC has underestimated the rate of global warming, and over time, they have been increasing the estimate - because of the date we are getting.

Arctic ice melting doesn't change sea level. That you have made this mistake speaks volumes about your opinion - it is not based on facts. Arctic ice melting is having many other effects, but not sea level change.

Greenland ice and Antarctic ice are the big daddies of sea level rise; with glaciers also contributing.

Sea level rise is already affecting millions of people. And it will be accelerating - because land ice is melting faster and faster.

Like in Antarctica.

Both poles are getting warmer much faster than elsewhere on the globe. Your comment reveals yet more ignorance - the Antarctic is colder than the Arctic, and this has two effects: it keeps snowing there because it has not gotten above freezing as much as the Arctic, and the summer melt was not able to "keep up".

But since 2014 - Antarctic ice is now shrinking. And it is shrinking MUCH faster than we thought possible.

So, it is YOU who need to listen and learn, and accept facts.

[All Darc]

Who here would like to get 38.000 dollars for year ???

San Francisco spent this for each homeless... And they are still homelesss, and many junked on street using drugs, sh...ting on street or in their own pants...

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And people can be voted off the island.

I have observed that stupid, crazy and poor people tend to breed the most. With the stupid/poor combination being most prolific.

It's not feasible to vote people off the island really, considering they would be citizens and have nowhere else to go. I guess the first immigrants could be deported. Ideally the family unit would be strengthened in this nation, so that people with behavioral/addiction/mental/physical issues have people and communities who care to help them.

My craziest idea would be compulsory IUDs for girls of reproductive age. They could remove it at any time, but the default is to have birth control. If this is too extreme, at least it would be provided for free. The $100 cost (just a WAG) is nothing compared to the consequences of children in unstable families or single parent situations.

Originally Posted by All Darc

Who here would like to get 38.000 dollars for year ???

San Francisco spent this for each homeless... And they are still homelesss, and many junked on street using drugs, sh...ting on street or in their own pants...

Did you visit SF? It sure is a bleep-hole city. My last visit I stepped over a man sleeping perpendicular on the sidewalk, with his trousers down to his knees, with everything hanging out. There are trashnatos (trash swirling around in wind vortexes caused by the buildings) and feces everywhere. This is mere blocks from City Hall. I'm sure Portland is headed towards a similar future.

Enabling is not helping, and it is not kind (though I do not question the good intentions of those who tend towards enabling).

[oil pan 4]

Where is sea level rise effecting millions of people?

Again, all this ice is melting and the sea level rise isn't even measurable. So either the ice isn't melting or some other unknown mechanism is in play.

People who already live below sea level don't count, on account of its a really bad idea overall and throughout human history anything man made holding back sea water is at the seas mercy and is going to fail. It's only a matter of time.
To believe otherwise is delusional.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by oil pan4

And people can be voted off the island.

I have observed that stupid, crazy and poor people tend to breed the most. With the stupid/poor combination being most prolific.

Suppose a new major island self-assembles offshore the mouth of the Amazon River. International airports bigger than an aircraft carrier, office blocks, research parks, dockable habitations.

Suppose further that the people who so offend All Darc are free to visit as tourists, but they're required to sign a 14-page terms of use contract. Suppose further that as soon as they contravene the terms, they're thrust into a cage that's lowered into a compost slurry, like in Waterworld.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

My craziest idea would be compulsory IUDs for girls of reproductive age.

Mine is that as everyone approaches puberty they are given a choice: Halt growth at a pre-pubescent state with 80-90lb body weight and live forever, else proceed to puberty, breed, grow old and die. Individuals choice would drive the population one way or the other.

[RedDevil]

... Chernobyl is powering up again!
https://phys.org/news/2018-10-cherno...lar-power.html



Small scale, nothing like this plan.
At least they fall out of old habits.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Mine is that as everyone approaches puberty they are given a choice: Halt growth at a pre-pubescent state with 80-90lb body weight and live forever, else proceed to puberty, breed, grow old and die. Individuals choice would drive the population one way or the other.

Human reproduction worked great for a primitive era, but is not serving us well now. With education, maturation in behavior, and financial stability not coming until people are in their late 20s to 30s, it's crazy that girls are at their prime reproductive age at something like age 16.

Best practice would probably be something along the lines of placing the eggs in a frozen bank so they do not degrade, and so that reproduction becomes a deliberate action.

We'd have plummeting population though, so incentives would need to be such that population rates don't fluctuate in harmful ways.

Originally Posted by RedDevil

... Chernobyl is powering up again!

Wait, so the worst nuclear disaster in history left a place so dangerous that people just walk around like normal and install solar?

The anti-nuke crowd has very unconvincing reasons for being anti-nuke. Nuclear weapon proliferation... North Korea, among the most difficult places to develop nuclear weapons, already has it. Proliferation will occur independently of nuclear power.

[sendler]

So I am glad to see that your original Libertarian statement has morphed into something more like a big government technocracy. Which is more along the lines of what is needed.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

It's not government responsibility to save people, even children, from what we perceive to be poor decisions, such as religious practices, including the increasingly popular denial of biology. Children are a product of their parents genetics and the environment they create for them. It isn't fair, but who said nature is fair.

My island country would be the haven for research on these taboo science fields.



I'm not saying my country would be a utopia; there is no such thing. It would promote truth and produce great discoveries though.

There would be social safety nets, but they would come with stipulations to make it clear that the benefits are there to catch people from utter catastrophe, not a system to game. If you take public money for healthcare for instance, the public then has a say in your health decisions. No smoking, no drinking, no drugs, no 300 lb body weight, etc.

Food assistance would be in the form of reimbursing grocery stores for staple food items like rice/beans/potatoes. No pizza parties on the citizens dime.

Flat sales tax to fund government programs. It would be made progressive in that staple food items would not be taxed, and the first $500 of rent/mortgage payments per month would be tax free. Maybe the first $5,000 on a new/used vehicle purchase is tax free too. It wouldn't matter much to people in the first place, with something like a 2% tax rate.

The function of government would be to secure national defense, enforce rule of law, protect the commons, and maybe provide some rehabilitation services if they can be shown to be effective.

If housing became expensive in a popular city, government would do nothing to address the "problem". Nobody has a right to be in a particular city, or a particular part of a city.

[redpoint5]

I don't follow Libertarian politics, or any politics very closely, but they are probably slightly closer to where I lean than other parties. The problem with libertarian philosophy is that they say "whose business is it if I pee in my side of the pool". While personal actions might not directly affect someone, they indirectly affect people.

I'm no expert on forms of government. I think ours was founded on pretty good principles, and I'd certainly use that as a template. I subscribe to the notion that we have the right to do anything except for the things that cause undue harm towards others, or otherwise trample on others rights. Law should not spell out what we have the right to do; it's assumed we have the right to do everything. Rather, law should spell out what we do not have the right to do; the limitations necessary to have a healthy, orderly, and just society.

Authority limits creativity. To that end, authority should be bare minimum so that creativity is maximized. The tricky part is agreeing on what bare minimum is. We need to create a system where whenever a tragedy strikes, we don't act hastily to implement something that does more harm than good. In other words, we need to take reasonable action, not emotional reaction.

I'm always using terrorism as an example. In the US, you have more chance of dying in a ladder fall than a terrorist act, and ladder fall deaths aren't all that common (do you know someone that died falling from a ladder?). Why then is so much effort, talk and restrictions aimed at fighting terrorism? The terrorists continue to win as our actions create ongoing economic and personal impacts.