|
PeonForHer -> RE: The End of Snow? (2/20/2015 6:00:27 AM)
|
quote:
part of the great irony here too is the left failing to see what effect their "global warming" policies have on the poor around the world.
That's no doubt true, in certain ways. But in others, they're only too clear about what will happen to the poorest people in the world if there isn't action on climate change. For instance, the most arid countries in the world also contain many of the poorest people. When what little water dries up, those areas will become uninhabitable and we can then expect mass migrations and ensuing friction between nations - nations, as it happens, that are already experiencing a lot of friction. But well before this has occurred, it will have been those who've argued for action on climate change who will done most to protect the flora and fauna on which those poor people depend.
As for Lindzen, your denying-scientist: to add to Lucy's comments - there's just no point in highlighting this or that denier's views at length. It implies some presumption that goes, roughly, 'One scientist says yes, another says no, so the truth is still up for grabs'. That's a dangerous and simplistic take on the state of the science. It also begs reams and reams of quotes by other scientists in opposition - which few here will read, much less understand.
As for the 'politics of climate change' - this always baffles me more than any other comment when deniers trumpet it. By a long, long way the powers-that-be will not want to hear about human induced climate change. It implies limits on the wealth and the power of the vast bulk of the people who currently hold them. I mean, really, who do you think is going to be able to bring the most pressure to bear on the politicians of the White House - the oil industry, or a bunch of climatologists?
|
|
|
|
