The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by sendler

We must accept that there will be climate refugees and migration. The world is too small. Imperialistic national borders will cease to function. People will not stay where there is no water, food, or shelter from heat and cold. They will start walking. We must learn to help each other the world over. Those that have had the good fortune to do very well for themselves in the current (previous) system must learn to chip in more.
India has actually made good strides with national programs in the more developed areas in promoting their "Two is enough" planned parenthood education where an army of female councilors goes out door to door to distribute information and contraceptives.

We are (already) seeing migrants driven by our climate crisis. That is one of the main reasons people are coming to the US from central America.

‘Food Doesn’t Grow Here Anymore. That’s Why I Would Send My Son North.’

[freebeard]

We are (already) seeing migrants driven by our climate crisis.

Sam Kinison [RIP] would approve. Who is included by "our"?

Originally Posted by NYT

NENTÓN, Guatemala — To understand why President Trump’s new sanctions and other flailing to end Central American immigration aren’t working, step into the dark, melancholy hovel of Ana Jorge Jorge.

An inflammatory, propagandistic lede? Oh, right. It's the NYT

...desperation — and, to an extent that most Americans don’t appreciate, this desperation...

So the paradox is that American carbon emissions are partly responsible for wretchedness in Guatemala that drives emigration, yet when those desperate Guatemalans arrive at the U.S. border they are treated as invaders.

Yes, of course: It’s time to note the standard caveat that it’s impossible to link any particular drought or hurricane to long-term climate change. But that feels like a hollow excuse when you’re facing a young mom who has lost both of her children because of impoverishment from drought.

Qualifiers to cover their b*tts.

As they see their own crops wither, families watch luckier households build new homes or buy motorcycles because of money sent back by a relative working in the U.S. Some of these new homes have U.S. flags painted on them.

This is why they don't stop in Mexico as refugees are required to do.

[redpoint5]

"Climate crisis" needs to be better defined. What are the measures and thresholds that constitute a crisis? Is it a crisis if some people are positively affected while others are negatively affected?

As I've mentioned before, some research suggests we'll overall continue to prosper due to global warming until sometime around 2080, at which point further warming will be a net negative.

So, if we're currently in a warming crisis, at what point did it begin, and how do we know it began then?

[freebeard]

"Climate crisis" needs to be better defined.
....
So, if we're currently in a warming crisis, at what point did it begin, and how do we know it began then?

The crisis isn't in the climate it's in the statistics, IOW in the economics.

It started in Babylonia six millennia ago. A major inflection point was 1914, with the third attempt to saddle the USofA with a central bank.

[sendler]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

"Climate crisis" needs to be better defined. What are the measures and thresholds that constitute a crisis? Is it a crisis if some people are positively affected while others are negatively affected?

As I've mentioned before, some research suggests we'll overall continue to prosper due to global warming until sometime around 2080, at which point further warming will be a net negative.

So, if we're currently in a warming crisis, at what point did it begin, and how do we know it began then?

WE'LL (all caps) continue to prosper as long as those that are negatively affected are free to migrate to the areas that are positively affected. If there are really any areas that can gain more than we lose. Canada? Russia?

[redpoint5]

We'd all probably agree that we're collectively better off now than during the most brutal part of the last ice age, so my question is, if we've continuously been warming since then, and considering humanity prospered due to that warming, at which date in recent history did humanity collectively begin suffering (more suffering than benefiting) from the warming?

In other words, you can't claim a current crisis unless we can define that humanity has collectively been worse off. Otherwise, it's just unfavorable weather for some unfortunate people, not to downplay their personal misfortune.

As best as I can understand the situation, we're doing great, but have a potential climate crisis on the horizon, with certain people already suffering negative consequences of climate change, and others prospering.

I understand that acting now to slow climate change makes sense. That said, I don't think it's the problem of our generations. We're doing things right now that directly harm people that we're more capable of solving. Climate change will be the problem of a future generation assuming we figure out how to avoid going from cold war to warm war.

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Who is included by "our"?

Do you live on planet Earth? Then you are included.

Microplastics Have Invaded The Deep Ocean — And The Food Chain

[freebeard]

Do you live on planet Earth? Then you are included.

I asked a friend what she thought about Alabama's abortion law and she literally screamed "You can't tell me what to do with my body". I assert that I get to have an opinion on when life begins because I am alive.

so my question is, if we've continuously been warming since then, and considering humanity prospered due to that warming, at which date in recent history did humanity collectively begin suffering (more suffering than benefiting) from the warming?

With the advent of Frankfurt School Marxism and it's corruption of the public discourse.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Democratic Socialism, National Socialism, Communism are all arrayed against anarcho-capitalism (see We Build The Wall*).

How about a Green Nuclear Deal?

*edit

I suppose that the issue of lack of command and control and unregulated commerce in a world of 7.5-billion uneducated consumers will be our coup de grace.
We're in trouble because of business as usual.It obviously didn't work.The Sumerian tradition of client/patron which survives to this day has been our undoing.
If a few corporations want to 'own' their actual 'footprint' on the planet,then we could do gentle handling,as their prices would rise to un-competitive levels,and they'd either have to abandon their current business models,or just go into the dustbin of history.
Free markets are problematic for the same reason.There are certain things which need to vanish from the market entirely,just as fast as possible.If we were at a global population of a hundred-million souls,none of this would be an issue.
Adam Smith,while pro-market,wasn't pro-business,he wasn't pro-democracy,or pro-republic,or a republican.He was a monarchist.And he knew that the only reason rich men could sleep at night,was because a very strong central government was watching their backs at night.His best friends were atheists.Like some of the early US Presidents.The abuses of the British East India Company(joint-stock corporation) sickened him.He also wrote at the same time of the American Revolution,a context for us to be mindful of today.And the only way you can really appreciate the "Wealth of Nations',is to read the three books he published prior to 1776.
There were no coal-fired power plants,gas-fired power plants,oil-fired power plant,petroleum industry,nuclear industry,automotive industry.The 2nd Amendment meant that you could own a single-shot,muzzle-loading flintlock long gun, or flintlock pistol.The global population was nothing compared to today.
The founding fathers hadn't a clue as to how things would play out today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to a Green Nuclear Deal,it's a matter of selling it.To both the public,and would-be investors.As of 2015,Dr. Michael Wysession was saying that until there was a well thought solution to the tens of thousands of generations which would have to safeguard the nuclear waste,any growth in the US nuclear industry would likely face opposition.And he said it in light of the current,Thorium 232-neutron bombardment to Thorium 233-decay to Protactinium 233-decay to Uranium 233 fuel technology.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

...He was a monarchist.And he knew that the only reason rich men could sleep at night,was because a very strong central government was watching their backs at night.

The 2nd Amendment meant that you could own a single-shot,muzzle-loading flintlock long gun, or flintlock pistol.

I'm not entirely opposed to a monarchy. It's sort of democratically established in that a corrupt monarch will eventually be overthrown. Possibly an easier problem to solve than a corrupt democracy as there's a singular problem to resolve.

Wealthy men don't need a strong central government because they have wealth (and guns) to protect them. Heck, I don't require police to keep me safe. They are last responders, not first responders. They'll write the reports after the fact. It seems the only time police are willing to enter a dangerous situation is when they've had 2 weeks to assemble several hundred heavily armed swat members, and generally they are the ones bringing the violence to what was previously a peaceful place.

The 2nd amendment wasn't to ensure people had the right to own muskets; it was to ensure the people could adequately defend their country and their land. It's explicitly stating what we all know is a natural right; to defend yourself against threat. As technology progressed, muskets were no longer sufficient as a defensive weapon.