It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The solutions to this apparently non-existent problem proposed by environmentalists would not have a significant effect on climate, but they would cause a significant amount of human suffering.
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Darkbluesky,thanks for the link and I certainly will read it...Looks interesting...However, there is one thing that the paper states that I must address:
The solutions to this apparently non-existent problem proposed by environmentalists would not have a significant effect on climate, but they would cause a significant amount of human suffering.
How so? How is it that finding an alternative fuel source will cause human suffering? It may cause suffering for big corporations, but who cares?
I am real quick to label this comment false.
Source
The melting of floating ice will not change sea level: the mass of this ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt).
Source
On the other hand, climate might swing back into another ice age. (In fact, some of the environmentalists now worried about global warming were worried about another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.)
If sea level were 66 meters higher than today, the result would be as illustrated below (for the map I used below see this page):
Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
That looks like a significant difference to me... Not something to make light of..I wouldn't think.
Originally posted by darkbluesky
I'm fairly certain that the land, air, and water in this Country is much cleaner
Originally posted by Regenmacher
[
Old Woodsy is still dead: New Woodsy Owl now seriously sucks
Carbon emissions have not declined:
Originally posted by darkbluesky
Nevertheless, our air, water and land are much cleaner than they were the mid 20th century, aren't they?