Millions to go hungry, waterless: climate report »
Posted by: MyWayOnNow 1 year, 7 months ago268 Comments Report this Story
Rising temperatures will leave millions more people hungry by 2080 and cause critical water shortages in China and Australia, as well as parts of Europe and the United States, according to a new global climate report.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 268
-
100%
colcam1 year, 7 months ago
Gloom and Doom!
One thing for the reader to consider: Every prediction of gloom and doom in the past has explained just how bad things were going to be based on nothing new happening and no change in technology.
In the late 1800's it was the massive increase of horse manure that would strangle us. We needed X number of horses per group of Y number of people, and as population grew the resultant growth in the number of horses, the amount of food they would eat, and the staggering levels of manure they would produce-- that would destroy us!
Apparently the horse manure is still piling up.
.
Reply-
100%
Eagle_Eye1 year, 7 months ago
Horse manure makes the best fertilizer!!! Since we got our little guy and used his poop, our garden is exploding!! We are still harvesting brocoli, cauliflower, onions, carrots
Reply -
0%
IcCaRus1 year, 7 months ago
ONCE AGAIN-
the 2 MOST important questions you can ask yourself regarding global warming have nothing to do with democrats or republicans, the auto industry, or even "big oil".
the 2 most important questions you can ask yourself regarding global warming are (and ALWAYS will be)
1. if its all a lie, a hoax, or simply not true, but we believe it and act on it anyway, whats the worst that can happen?
think about that for a minute, imagine the worst case scenario you can come up with, then ask yourself this question;
2. if its all true and we DONT believe it and act accordingly, whats the worst that can happen?
now, think about THAT for a minute and imagine the worst case scenario you can come up with.
all you naysayers; do you get it YET? the consequences of #1 are a walk in the park compared to the consequences of #2
are you willing to gamble the future of your children, your grandchildren, the entire human race? yes, or no? no talking points, just YES or NO???
Reply-
100%
jaern1 year, 7 months ago
You forgot to add Mankind into your quotient:
-ice caps will melt, releasing more fresh water for more pollutants to poison.
-more of the earth would be cultivatable by the release of fresh water provided that it hasn't been developed for waterfront condos or polluted.
-more plants will grow, allowing for more CO2 consumption provided that the land isn't burned off and clear-cut.
-more food will become available to feed more people who will have more types of cancers r/t the more pollutants released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Age because no one has to worry about the effects of Global Warming.
Whether it is truly "Global Warming" or not, we have a steady track record for not taking care of the planet.
Reply -
0%
Kenoryn1 year, 7 months ago
Oh wow, so really global warming will be fabulous and no one noticed. Let's look at point one again:
"ice caps will melt, releasing more fresh water". This water will go into the ocean, eventually mixing with salt water and becoming useless to us, but not before causing massive disruption to ocean currents, stopping the ocean conveyorbelt and potentially throwing Europe into an ice age.
Point two: more of the earth will become cultivatable by releasing fresh water- what? how will this fresh water get to land? will increased cultivatable land make up for the loss of Europe? how about the rising sea level which will cover some of the most densely populated areas of Earth?
What about effects on crop pests? could that go badly? how about melting permafrost in the Arctic and its effects on plants (not to mention constructs like pipelines)? effects on El Nino? increase in natural disasters? disruption of ecosystems resulting in species extinctions?
Reply -
100%
m-simon1 year, 7 months ago
Suppose it gets as warm as it was in the 1000s?
Greenland habitable without food imports. Few or no glaciers in Europe.
Suppose it is all due to increased solar output? There is evidence of global warming on Mars.
Suppose we actually develop
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2006/11/easy-l
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
*
Reply -
100%
ramblingwreck1 year, 7 months ago
loCaRus: are you willing to gamble the future of your children, your grandchildren, the entire human race? yes, or no? no talking points, just YES or NO???
ramblingwreck: Given the historical record of Earth's climate, the simple truth is that catastrophic climate change WILL occur regardless of what "man" does or does not do. THAT is the simple incontrovertible truth which I accept.
Because of this inevitable change, yes, according to your definition I am willing to "gamble" the future since there is really not any gamble involved...the Earth's climate will dramatically change.
Reply -
0%
mrbs1 year, 7 months ago
i dont accept the question as valid because it dosent matter.the earth was dead the minute it came into being.you can ask a 100 experts and get 101 answers as to how or when but they all agree that our sun will destory the earth.the worst case in either scenario is what happnes if we are still stuck on this rock.what if we waste and squander our one and only shot trying to preserve something that is going to die anyway.what will happen to shakesphere and bach,the bible and the quaran.how about norma jean and boggy.all of this and more will all be for not.we need to get our eggs out of this one fragile basket while we still have the resources to do so. before we waste them trying to conserve them.the only gamble would be to put these things off.the human race has no future on earth.after we have made sure that the only confirmed source of life has spread a little,then we can turn back and see what can be done for the earth.
Reply
-
6%
LvJ921 year, 7 months ago
yea nothing. i guess "nothing" is the reason that it didnt snow at all all winter in Northern New Jersey until now, and why the tempteratures were actually hitting the 70s in December. I should know, i live here. ( :( i miss winter!!)
Reply -
0%
vandee1 year, 7 months ago
Yes, this climate report is all BS that's totally wrong. It's only been verified by every legitimate climatologist on the planet, but because other doom and gloom scenarios have been wrong, therefore this one must be, too.
Let's just keep raping and piliaging our planet of every natural resource with impunity because there will surely never be any consequences for any of our actions. Why should we worry about the planet when we have giant SUVs that must be driven and oil companies that must earn ever-increasing billion-dollar record profits every single quarter to please their shareholders? Let's keep our priorities straight here, people. Who needs drinking water for the population at large when you've got profits for big business at risk? I mean, come on!!!
Reply
-
0%
TwiztidToker1 year, 7 months ago
The Sky Is Falling Huh?...i dont think it is possible to accuratley predict what is going to happen in 70 years. The local wheather man cant even accuratley predict what the whather is going to be like in 5 days. Now if the ice caps were melting wouldnt that make alot more water????
Reply-
-
0%
Kenoryn1 year, 7 months ago
Actually, mostly "where the ice was" will be water. Just water. More ocean. The ice caps don't sit on anything, they're mostly floating ice. The result of this will be a decrease in the earth's albedo as ice becomes open ocean, causing accelerated warming at the poles. Not to mention stopping the thermohaline ocean processes.
Reply
-
-
33%
capecoralM1 year, 7 months ago
The Church of Global Warming and the "green" movement is more about money than anything. Since the Church can use the changing weather as their battle cry to raise money or prove a political point, then they will never run out of money because the weather never stops changing. Next we will again hear about global "cooling",(Blasphemy they screech), and the human impacts causing the earths temperature to drop.
C02 levels have been trending down, after being quite a bit higher than it is now (.038% of the atmosphere to at most in the past .7% of the earth's atmosphere) IF C02 makes it warmer, why does the temp not go up and down with CO2 levels? http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/images/co2.gi
H2O is the Number One greenhouse gas. Would an energy source that emits Water Vapor, increasing the H20 levels, have the opposite effect of what the Church worshipers want? Perhaps the Church wants to end human activity on earth and is taking an opposite approach. Hmmm....
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
ramblingwreck1 year, 7 months ago
Eagle Eye: The fact that we had no hurricanes is proof of climate change.
ramblingwreck: Those very same weather experts were predicting the worst year ever for hurricanes also based on the "climate change". It must be wonderful to be able to claim any symptom as proof of your position.
Reply
-
-
100%
whatever20001 year, 7 months ago
It's folly to try to predict these things accurately. Regional weather patterns are very difficult to predict even 1- 2 weeks ahead of time. Weather system and climate prediction models are very complex and there is a lot of relationships and interdependence between what on the surface appear to be unrelated phenomena. With every year of observation, these models need to be corrected to the latest data. Using the same argument regarding the complexity of climate/ weather systems, it would be arrogance on our part to assume that we had no effect on global climate as a result of greenhouse emissions. It just makes good sense to me to find other cleaner sources of energy from an environmental as well as a political perspective.
Reply-
-
0%
hecuba1 year, 7 months ago
We do have an effect...this has been scientifically proven...but...even on the off chance that the vast majority of scientists are wrong....why are people so resisitant to changing polluting practices, which everyone agrees are harmful to cleaner, to more environmentally friendly practices??
Are you, in fact, saying that sending tons and tons of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere is healthy?? Tell me do you breath carbon dioxide? Perhaps you have stock in the tobbaco companies too.
I am sorry if I sound a bit angry and obnoxious...but this is a serious issue and the means to counteract the problem do for the most part exist...or can be developed in an expeditious period of time....Not only that but there will be tons and tons of money in this for the clever entrepreneurs...who get in on the ground floor...
What is the problem..?
Reply
-
-
-
85%
IAmMine1 year, 7 months ago
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[1][2] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.
A small minority (under 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Pan
But somehow some of you think that just by having internet access makes you experts and more intelligent than them.
Reply-
0%
whatever20001 year, 7 months ago
At the risk of seeming un-intelligent next to your staggering intellect I would like to pose the following question. Is the panel assesing the "risk of human- induced climate change" or in this instance, are they predicting the results of an already accepted human- induced climate change? I don't believe any member of the scientific community contests that the climate has changed in the past and will continue to change in the future with or without human influence. If everyone accepted blindly what the "scientific elite" porttrayed as reality, there would still be blood letting, leaching, and a firm belief in spontaneous generation in the scientific community.
Reply-
100%
IAmMine1 year, 7 months ago
Actually whatever2000 you seem like an intelligent person, I was simply making a passing statement concerning some of the previous arguements listed above. Like "can't accurately predict the weather 5 days from now, calling IPCC dummies, and my new personal fave the horse manure" Comparing climate and the weather for next week are different things in that the level of predictability are comparably different. Climate is averaged over a period of time wh
-
-
