Anthropogenic Global Warming - Does More Need To Be Done?

Actually I was discussing global warming with my physics teacher, and he described a study he was reading that theorized that global warming would cause another ice age (severity not specified) that would help the Saharan and South Asian regions.

Desperate people will do anything to survive. I assure you the refugees will find a way in, in a trickle or a river. Only a ban and massive crack down on immigration will stop them (even then not completely). If that happens our society will change in a different way.

Emigration from the affected regions will certainly rise, but your expectations of hundreds of millions are wholly unrealistic.

And there you have the two outcomes I mentioned previously...

I didn't say clean. I said cheap. Or entire civilization is based on such cheap energy, without it we simply can't maintain this standard of living and these levels of population.

Baring nuclear fission, which is subject to the same problems as fossil fuels, the current alternatives will never be able to provide the way oil does.

Leveling of at what percentage rate? Unless its 0% (No growth) I don't care.

The only thing we're getting more efficient at is extracting and processing our resources. The only thing that happens when Apple can turnout more Ipods form less materials is growth in production capacity. Not a decrease in material usage.

Either way we'll survive, as a species that is.

This might be of interest to you:



And this playlist:
http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42#g/c/6A1FD147A45EF50D

Okay so let's do a little intellectual exercise shall we? Say that China finally over does it with their treatment of the environment in the next 20 years and their air isn't quite lethal, but if you catch a cold/flu your as good as dead. The old and the young also die at increasing rates due to the total and utter lack of clean water and barely breathable air.

Where would the refugee's go? How many would all ready be gone when the threat reaches it's peak? Would india/ other south asian nations be facing similar situations?

200 or 300 hundred million out of a population of 3 billion people from the areas you mentioned. That's only a tenth
of the population, that may even be conservative considering all the horrible things that are going to happen.

So becoming a semi-police state where the police patrolling the streets searching for illegal immigrants is a common sight, that wouldn't be a radical change? Or do policemen usually sweep your house for immigrants?

DemonDaze That video single handedly turned me into a sort of anarchist . I'm going to treat life 20 years from now like the zombie apocalypse.

Well now I'm terribly depressed. Thank you.

Mind you both that the overall outcome the nice lady in the video came too is basically option two stated in this post:

Personally, I'm am of the same mind set as Ronald in that I prefer option one. But naturally most other forum members consider option one an "affront to human liberty".

Well it is a affront to human liberty, I'd rather we keep our morals intact rather than throwing them away to prevent the inevitable.

Morals huh. Tell me, which is more humane? To enforce a control on the population of a species, or to let it grow until its habitat simply can't support it and vast amounts of the population began to suffer and starve?

What are you proposing exactly?

You don't remember? The same thing I was proposing last time we had a conversation on population growth, or rather, something similar in nature should my method be found to have negative effects on the existing populations health. After all we want to neuter the dog, not blow its brains out.

Due to Global Warming, the sea levels will rise. The water that's on Earth right now isn't going to leave. If it gets dryer, it doesn't mean there's less water, it means the water's somewhere else, and I'd assume that's in the sea. Now, sea water itself cannot be used for irrigation, but I'm sure we can figure out a cost effective (if we even care about that anymore when we're faced with mass starvation) way to clean it up and use it as normal water.

Suddenly discovering or spending the decades we still have with the energy sources we use now to develop more efficient ways of creating power, like nuclear fusion, or large combinations of water, wind and solar power?

It would take far longer then simply "the decades we have now", and that's not even taking into consideration the nontechnical obstacles. Let alone to do all this while simultaneously maintaining both the current standard of living and growth in any quantity. Do I even need to say impossible?

OMG ITS SNOWING IN CALIFORNIA AND ITS SIXTY DEGREES IN NEW JERSEY! ITS THE APOCALYPSE!

Ahh yes... now I remember.
I will probably end up raising objections that you already have heard though.
Remember: nobody, not even the CPC likes the OCP.

OCP is absolute shit in comparison to my master plan.

Does it involve sacrificing goats?

In all seriousness though, the OCP wouldn't have been such a disgusting failure if it wasn't for regressive backwater culture. I will defend my liberties, but I will also sacrifice some to maintain to the status quo in terms of living conditions.

In mass.