Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 0
So why does that make it suck?

Simple answer, it doesn't suck.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
One might *think* that this infrastructure hacking by Russia, China and North Korea could be the biggest threat to the US. Or, maybe that it's the growing nuclear capability of Iran or North Korea. But the biggest threat isn't any of those, or even Transregional Islamic Terrorism. The biggest threat to the US is White supremacy:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-supremacy-most...

Although it actually might be Global Warming:
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-troops-military-told-global-213...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Global warming is the greatest threat by far. It is already causing people in the US and elsewhere to move/relocate. There is no real way to prevent it, so the best that can be done is to prepare for the inevitable mass population shift from the areas most impacted (domestically and internationally) to the cooler interior and more northern latitudes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't see that ranking risks helps. We need to address all of them with resources appropriate for that issue.

Ignoring any of them is a bad idea.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Global warming is the greatest threat by far. It is already causing people in the US and elsewhere to move/relocate.

Have a nice trip.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Have a nice trip.

I don't have to do anything. I already live in a destination state (MN).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't see that ranking risks helps. We need to address all of them with resources appropriate for that issue.

Ignoring any of them is a bad idea.


Real or contrived.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't see that ranking risks helps. We need to address all of them with resources appropriate for that issue.

But, given limited resources, giving them at least an approximate ranking is important to deciding what resources are appropriate for which risks.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Different problems have different needs. Dollars is not a reliable measure. We need good judgement on what is appropriate in each category.

The 80/20 rule applies. You would like 80% of resources to the top 20% of identified problems. 20% should go to the rest. They should not be ignored. You would like someone paying attention and alerting us if one becomes more urgent.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Global warming is the greatest threat by far. It is already causing people in the US and elsewhere to move/relocate.

Climate change...whether on a warming or cooling trend.....has been occuring every day this planet has been in existence. There is no day over billions of years the Climate has not been in a state of change. This occurs whether humans exist or not. If the Earth mean temperature is projected to rise by 1 degree C., it will change with or without human presence, as it has over billions of years. The only impact humans have is accelerating the time subterranean carbon re-enters the atmosphere....which it will reenter over time anyway.

If the Earth were a living organism, it would not know humans even exist. As humans we have NO control over the major affectors of climate change: plate tectonics migration, Earth magnetic pole migration, volcanoes, solar ejections (sun spots), changing distance to the sun and earth axis tilt change. We think it's all about us; Pure human chauvinism.

Democrats are working over-time to sell the insanity that only Democrats can return our climate to 'normalcy', meaning no wild fires, no tornados and no hurricanes. It takes a child's mind to buy this....and like some posters here, I fear there are more of these chronological adults who function at the level of a children than we may realize.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
I fear there are more of these chronological adults who function at the level of a children than we may realize.

Witness the Messiah complex of Gore and Thunberg along with their sheep.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm 61 and for as long as "global warming" (now called "climate change") has been a thing, I've been skeptical. I try to live my life using logic and data, so it's hard for me to admit that maybe there is something to this after all. That being said, is it REALLY man-made and can we REALLY do anything, other than adapt, about it short of becoming the Flintstones and ending all advanced economic activity? And I don't hear anything about limiting population growth, which is an important piece of this.

I guess my biggest problem is that this has become yet another tool for the Left to clobber capitalism. Capitalism DOES suck, but it sucks less than all the alternatives and has provided the greatest standard of living for the greatest number of people.

So I dunno. I'm concerned about "climate change", but I'm not willing to get into bed with what the Left wants to do.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
And I don't hear anything about limiting population growth, which is an important piece of this. - Daryll44

--------------

Absolutely. Anything we manage to accomplish in reducing CO2 will be offset by population growth in matter of a few weeks or months. Yet it is never talked about by the warmists.

When you make this point to them, they dismiss the issue by claiming that reduced CO2 will lead to third world prosperity and prosperity leads to reduced birth rates. I remain unconvinced but the issue is never discussed which leads me to think there is little or no supporting evidence for this claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
and prosperity leads to reduced birth rates.

Well, that has been known to be true for at least a couple centuries now, and observed in data all the way back to the Roman Empire.

There is a catch, though: in modern times, prosperity FIRST leads to a massive decline in infant and childhood death, due to (a) better sanitation and (b) better access to medical care. So then the population of child-bearing-age women surges, and the lower birth rate applies to that larger population.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well, that has been known to be true for at least a couple centuries now, and observed in data all the way back to the Roman Empire.

There is a catch, though: in modern times, prosperity FIRST leads to a massive decline in infant and childhood death, due to (a) better sanitation and (b) better access to medical care. So then the population of child-bearing-age women surges, and the lower birth rate applies to that larger population. - warrl


--------------

Good point.

The proposition that reducing CO2 leads to third world prosperity remains highly doubtful.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The proposition that reducing CO2 leads to third world prosperity remains highly doubtful.

On available evidence, it will lead to greater equality as the average and median prosperity of people in rich nations declines.

Some of us do not think that making people poorer is good.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Capitalism DOES suck, but it sucks less than all the alternatives and has provided the greatest standard of living for the greatest number of people."

So why does that make it suck?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So why does that make it suck?

Simple answer, it doesn't suck.
Print the post Back To Top