33 ms·

Not so bad for whom? The article says that this happening would put coastal cities under 20 feet of water: > Since some twenty feet of sea-level rise is tied

by j4yav 6y ago

Not so bad for whom? The article says that this happening would put coastal cities under 20 feet of water: > Since some twenty feet of sea-level rise is tied up in Greenland's ice, every coastal city in the world is at risk.

phkahler 6y ago
>> Not so bad for whom? The article says that this happening would put coastal cities under 20 feet of water The point is that we should expect this to happen anyway, weather we speed it up or not. Once that's accepted, we can talk about moving people instead of trying to stop the inevitable.
- raffraffraff 6y ago
  Looking at one-and-only planet we can ever call home... * The idea that greenhouse gases like methane and co2 warm the planet, is not controversial. * The idea that green plants capture co2 and release oxygen is not controversial. * The idea that over billions of years, a very green earth captured and stored a lot of co2 and held it in the form of oil, coal and gas, is not controversial. Looking at human activity over a few generations... * The idea that humans have cut down co2-absorbing forest, burn them, and replaced them with methane emitting cows, is not controversial. * The idea that humans have mined and burned vast quantities of fossil fuels, releasing their co2 into the atmosphere, is not controversial. It's super easy to casually cite natural rhythms in glacial periods or shrug and point at "uh, the carbon cycle". Denial is super easy. Just pull point at any sufficiently complex part of climate science, shrug and say "It's probably nothing to do with me!" But here's a simple question: Do you believe that the human race, by chopping/burning millions of acres of forests and mining/burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels that took millions/billions of years to store, over just a few generations, has made an impact on the climate? Nope? Yep? If "Yep", and it's simply a wild coincidence that this dramatic change "was going to happen anyways" and has nothing to do with our perfectly timed co2-releasing activity on the planet... well, that's some fucking coincidence.

by j4yav 6y ago

phkahler 6y ago

>> Not so bad for whom? The article says that this happening would put coastal cities under 20 feet of water The point is that we should expect this to happen anyway, weather we speed it up or not. Once that's accepted, we can talk about moving people instead of trying to stop the inevitable.

raffraffraff 6y ago
Looking at one-and-only planet we can ever call home... * The idea that greenhouse gases like methane and co2 warm the planet, is not controversial. * The idea that green plants capture co2 and release oxygen is not controversial. * The idea that over billions of years, a very green earth captured and stored a lot of co2 and held it in the form of oil, coal and gas, is not controversial. Looking at human activity over a few generations... * The idea that humans have cut down co2-absorbing forest, burn them, and replaced them with methane emitting cows, is not controversial. * The idea that humans have mined and burned vast quantities of fossil fuels, releasing their co2 into the atmosphere, is not controversial. It's super easy to casually cite natural rhythms in glacial periods or shrug and point at "uh, the carbon cycle". Denial is super easy. Just pull point at any sufficiently complex part of climate science, shrug and say "It's probably nothing to do with me!" But here's a simple question: Do you believe that the human race, by chopping/burning millions of acres of forests and mining/burning trillions of tons of fossil fuels that took millions/billions of years to store, over just a few generations, has made an impact on the climate? Nope? Yep? If "Yep", and it's simply a wild coincidence that this dramatic change "was going to happen anyways" and has nothing to do with our perfectly timed co2-releasing activity on the planet... well, that's some fucking coincidence.