Climate anxiety is hitting me all at once. How do I go about my normal life?

Yep. Devote yourself to the Scriptures, God’s word, starting with Matthew 6:24-34. Obey God’s word through faith and not sight. Walking by sight, what we see, will get us in trouble every time. God’s word is sifficient for all issues of life. The words of men are secondary. Read it over again and again and ask the following questions:

  1. What is Jesus saying?
  2. What does he say about anxiety?
  3. Ask yourself about how true believers handle the things of the world
  4. Then ask more questions from this text.

The moment you begin trusting in the authority, words of men, theory, speculations, and their ideologies and philosophies, you will lose sight of faith and trust in God. People will lead you astray but God will not. Jesus said that those who belong to him must live “by every word proceeding from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). This does not mean select those passages you lie and reject those those that do not correspond with a certain point of view. Once you begin wavering from every word of God, you will begin rejecting God and his word.

Additionally, believe God is in control of all he created, and he intervenes for redemption and judgment. For those who disobey him and twist his word, they receive judgment. Those who trust him and his word, they receive eternal life.

But it hasn’t been – what’s been “happening for millions of years” is like a hiker traveling through a forest in mountains with no trail or map encountering a flying beetle; what’s happening now is like a Hennessey Venom F5 on a freeway encountering that same beetle. In the first case the beetle can adjust and get out of the way, but with the Hennessey Venom that same beetle will end up as a smear on the windshield.
Species don’t evolve when change happens as fast as we’re pushing it. And when enough species can’t adjust and die off, ecosystems can collapse; when ecosystems collapse the result can be deserts – and deserts aren’t conducive to supporting human life.

Sure. But the question is whether humanity will.

2 Likes

I am going to like your answer not because i agree with all of it, but because the last part is very very important and my agreement with that overrides the issue i have with the first part.

The problem with the first part of your answer…

How else is it that dinosaurs have been extinct for approx 65million years due to climate change?

According to a recent study in the journal Science Advances, climate change might have also played a major role in the extinction of the dinosaurs. https://www.salon.com/2023/11/29/most-dinosaurs-were-by-climate-change-not-a-meteorite-new-study-suggests/

Our data suggest that volcanic sulfur degassing from such activity could have caused repeated short-lived global drops in temperature, stressing the ecosystems long before the bolide impact delivered its final blow at the end of the Cretaceous. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg8284

oops forgot to add this in earlier…
whether or not the human condition is such that we wipe out the planets existing system before it can adapt is irrelevant…that would simply mean we go extinct ourselves and then in time, evolution begins again! So this point of yours is mute.

In any case, i really think one should learn to add 2 and 2 together before demanding someone must have written 4 in an answer book somewhere before it can be believed that the solution is in fact 4! My point here is that as individuals we dont need a rule book to tell us climate change is real, seeing smog on the horizon, rubbish all along the sides of roads, concrete jungles [cities]…these are all indicators.

I found the following information regarding the dangers of microplastics…its very serious problem

microplastics interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism, and elimination of hormones, which can cause endocrine disruption and lead to various endocrine disorders, including metabolic disorders, developmental disorders, and even reproductive disorders (i.e., infertility, miscarriage, and congenital malformations).20 Microplastics can act as a medium for environmental toxic substances such as bisphenol A, which are absorbed into the body and cause various diseases of the endocrine system and reproductive system.21 In a recent study, microplastics were also found in the placentas of six pregnant women by Raman microspectroscopy.22 The potential negative effects of microplastics on the human immune system warrant further research. Accumulated exposure to microplastics induced chronic inflammation and homeostasis changes in animal experiments,23 and a study on human lung cells showed that microplastics can activate innate immunity by regulating the expression of genes and proteins involved in the immune response.24
Health Effects of Microplastic Exposures: Current Issues and Perspectives in South Korea - PMC.

The above article has some alarming information regarding microplastics and is well worth the read.

I did make an interesting list of native, bird-friendly plants I could theoretically grow at some point. As much as I’d like to grow some now, the house I’m living in now doesn’t have very deep soil. A lot of trees are in the yard, but I think they were there before the neighborhood was built and a bunch of artificial lakes were built. Plus, we have roaming deer that come every night to eat pretty much any flower or fruit they can reach. So if I try to grow something now I think it would just get eaten, unless it’s something that can keep going even after its flowers or fruits are gone (I know very little about plants but I’d assume that a plant that can’t reproduce itself woudl be a problem).

Well if you are able to you can reach out to a local native plant society or state native plant group online and someone there will be able to help most likely. Vascular plants have been around since the Devonian and went from little things to giant forests and from ferns to conifers to angioslerms. There are plants in Death Valley ( over a thousand ) to the two in Antarctica. They grow on the side of rocky cliffs and they grow below the ocean water.

2 Likes

Thoughts on Climate Change

First some words of biblical encouragement.

2 Timothy 1:7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. NKJV

Philippians 4:6-9 Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything. Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done. 7 Then you will experience God’s peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus.

And now, dear brothers and sisters, one final thing. Fix your thoughts on what is true, and honorable, and right, and pure, and lovely, and admirable. Think about things that are excellent and worthy of praise. 9 Keep putting into practice all you learned and received from me—everything you heard from me and saw me doing. Then the God of peace will be with you. NLT

Do I believe in anthropogenic climate change? Of course I do. As many of you will recognize, I am a Young Earth Creationist, and believe there was a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago. And it was human behavior that brought God’s judgment upon the earth. And the next biblical climate change judgment is foretold in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the last book of the Bible, judgment from God for human wickedness.

We also know that climate change has happened many times in history. There are cities that are now underwater when the ocean was much lower than now. We know that the Sahara was once lush and green with abundant waterways. We also know that during the ice age, there was not ice in northern Russia and Siberia and perhaps Alaska, and that it was more than likely that the Arctic Ocean was ice free. Antarctica also had vegetation and animals. Greenland was called Greenland because it was green and crops were grown there—all of this not so long ago. And we know that none of these climate changes and events were caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

Galileo reported that he saw sunspots, but a few years later, he was called out for wrong information. There were no sunspots on the sun. As we now know, both were right. Galileo saw sunspots, and later observers did not. And we know that during the time without sunspots, temperatures were colder. We know from this and other events and research that the sun has had significant effects on the climate and still may today. The sun has had far more influence on the climate than do the so called greenhouse gases.

I have lived long enough, and so have many of you, to remember that scientists told us in the 1970s that we were in danger of another ice age due to cooling climate. One scientist recommended that we burn all the coal in the world to stave off this ice age. Of course, the narrative has changed to global warming.

Then in the 90’s and early 2000’s, there were dire warnings about global warming, the Arctic Ocean ice sheets melting completely, and other such catastrophes. So many warnings with deadlines that are now long past. If these prognosticators were prophets in biblical times, they were to be stoned for their false prophecies.

I was in high school and college, and I remember waking up in the mornings in Southern California hearing the birds—coughing. Okay, that is an exaggeration, but the Los Angeles basin was covered with smog. But now the air is much clearer despite there being many more people and automobiles. So we have made a lot of progress already in creation care, as we are mandated in scripture to do.

So what is happening now? It is really hard to know, because the issue of climate change has become so politicized, even as demonstrated in this current discussion–“How am I suppose to reach other Christians when most of them think they have to buy into every Republican talking point, including the idea that climate change is just a myth?” And why should we believe every Democrat talking point?

No, not nearly all climate scientists agree with the current narrative, maybe not even most. But these voices are being silenced while those supporting the current narrative are amplified. So when there is not an open conversation, it is hard to know the truth.

So what action should we take? We now have 8 billion people in the world. Any solutions we put forward need to assure that no lives are lost because of climate change policies. After all, why save the earth for people while millions and potentially billions of people may die from starvation and cold? As hard as it is to accept, there are some elites that voice that reducing the earth’s human population by half or even to half a billion is necessary to save the planet. With AI, there are some elites talking about how human labor can be replaced with AI robots. Not so many right now, but these people are increasing. Are you volunteering to be one of those eliminated for the cause? If not, then let’s work together to assure that everyone has food and shelter and can survive, not just the elite.

The earth currently supports this many people with food, transportation, heating and cooling primarily because of fossil fuels and fossil based fertilizer. But we are stampeding toward transitioning to renewable energy, which is not really as renewable and earth friendly as we think.

So let’s think about renewable energy. That certainly includes hydropower, yes? But three dams are being taken out in the Klamath basin in Northern California, and there is now talk of taking out more in the Snake River basin in the Northwest—for environmental reasons of course. Nuclear energy is carbon free, but for many this is off the table as well, even though the technology has advanced considerably and it is immensely more safe, and new technologies have largely addressed the issue of spent fuel storage. The opposition is largely based on fear. Wind turbines slaughter migrating birds. Ocean based turbines are also suspected of hindering whale reproduction. There are even more environmental and human safety issues involved in climate technologies.

One way to determine what these elite climate change spokepeople really believe is to look at their actions, not listen to their words. They fly to Davos in private jets. They buy and live in beachfront properties. These elites generally have much larger carbon footprints that the average American. Maybe they don’t care, because sacrifice is for us, and not for them. Or maybe they don’t believe what they are saying, but their agenda brings them more money and power—as in “follow the money.”

Remember also, the earth has only one atmosphere. So wringing out the last of America’s carbon emissions won’t change much while China and India are opening new coal fired plants on a regular basis. And why shouldn’t they? Carbon based fuels is what western economies were built on, and how can we tell them they can’t do the same to build their economies? That is the response that they give us when we ask them to get on board with the global climate initiative. Of course, there is some posturing that they will support the global efforts. But again, don’t watch their lips move. Watch their actions and behavior.

What are other reasonable alternatives? Well, like many cultures and societies did in the past, we can adjust. So if Greenland becomes green again, and Saskatchewan and Manitoba become better areas to live and farm while other areas become less suited for agriculture, well so much the better. If some or even many people have to move out of low lying areas as or if the oceans rise, well move them. That is an alternative that may be more achievable, whether we like it or not. So what if the Obamas have to leave Martha’s vineyard, while those a few blocks away now have ocean front property? That would be a pleasant inversion. Those who can’t currently afford ocean front property will have the ocean in front of their homes.

Here is my somewhat tongue in cheek response. Or maybe it is close to what I actually feel. And after all, isn’t what I “feel” my truth, and not what I know or believe? At least that is the common narrative today.

The climate gods are angry. If we do not make massive sacrifices to them, they will destroy us. The climate narrative is so intense that it takes on a religious like fervor. The climate elite engender fear, and with fear, they gain control. But purveyors of fear are not of God or from God—because God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

Here is some truth. We would like to think that we (people) can control the climate. Probably not that much. But God can. In the moral realm, the same is true. We think we have the capacity to determine right and wrong ourselves, perhaps through societal agreement (social contract theory). We make ourselves into gods. But morality is based in transcendence. God is the final arbiter of right and wrong and good and evil. In both the physical and spiritual realms, God is sovereign, and we are not.

We started with scripture, God’s Word. So let’s end with what God says. After the worldwide flood, God said,

“As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest,
cold and heat,
summer and winter,
day and night
will never cease.”

Genesis 8:22

God keeps his promises; God keeps his word.

So we cast all our cares upon Him, the sovereign of the universe.

You make some good points in your remarks, but I feel have some major misstatements in there as well.

I think you will find that those climate scientists who disagree are few and far between, and mostly are financed by those with a vested interest in the status quo. Far from being suppressed, their voices often are amplified far above their actual numbers and validity of their work.

Very true. But also true is that climate change is killing many people as well, and disproportionately impacts the poor and disadvantaged. Famines due to climate change, and deaths due to the global weirding of weather are becoming more frequent. As you state, the elites will adapt. They can move their condos to more stable ground. The poor cannot. Rather than having beachfront properties, they will live in flooded ruins.

6 Likes

For those that insist that climate change isn’t real, you should know that plenty of birds and other wildlife are still in danger of extinction even if the climate wasn’t changing at all. There’s habitat loss, invasive species, pollution (particularly plastics). Stray cats and window strikes also kill plenty of birds. Overall many people are ignorant of how their actions can have bigger consequences for an ecosystem then they’d realize.

6 Likes

Thank you for your response.

The Fraser Institute (one example) concludes from their surveys of literature and that the split is closer to 50-50. Putting the 'con' in consensus; Not only is there no 97 per cent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues | Fraser Institute In any case, there is not a 97% consensus as widely touted.

It is true that the Fraser Institute is privately funded which also means that it receives no government funding. Those who are privately funded may have a vested interest in the status quo. But this is a two edged sword. Those who are government funded also have a vested interest in change. There are certainly many groups that have significant financial or political interests supported by the climate change advocates. And scientists who are skeptical about the current political consensus are unlikely to receive government (political) funding. That is not amplification; that is suppression.

So yes, let’s continue to clean up our environment in the most reasonable and cost effective manner. Let’s engage our best minds (our God-given gift) in finding better solutions. I believe there are better solutions waiting to be found, but that the politicization of climate change resulting in mandates blind us from looking in a better direction for answers.

For example, a friend is involved in identifying how the large company he works for (In 2018 and 2019, Fortune named Fortive as a Future 50 company.[7] In 2020, Fortune named Fortive one of the world’s most admired companies) can make a difference. They have two product lines and initiatives. The first is manufacturing testing equipment that can detect losses in the transmission of electricity so this can be remedied. This has significant potential impact in reducing electrical energy waste and manufacturing costs.

The second is in simplifying the testing of individual cell of batteries–and there are many–such as those used in EVs so that those often few poorly functioning cells can be replaced rather than replacing the entire costly battery. This has the potential to considerably reduce the cost of EV maintenance, and also the environmental impact of disposing of the batteries.

Free and private enterprise, engaging our best minds, has much more potential to impact climate change than mandates that are more political than pragmatic or practical. One reason is that industry works to find cost effective solutions to problems. But research will continue to be funded by government grants if it supports the current politically accepted narrative whether it results in the best solutions or not.

As the cost of energy in the US climbs, so does the cost of manufacturing in the US. China on the other hand is prioritizing economic growth over emissions reduction, and is currently constructing 43 new coal-fired power plants and 18 new blast furnaces — equivalent to adding about 1.5% to its current annual emissions.

Since energy in China is less costly than in the US, the cost of their manufactured goods is less than ours. So the world will purchase from China. The bottom line is that the US is exporting our carbon emissions to China, and also American jobs to China.

Paradoxically. A Chinese EV (electric vehicle) manufacturer recently surpassed Tesla in EV sales. But at least in China, these EVs will be largely coal burning cars.

A similar problem is emerging in farming. The Netherlands, amazingly, are the second or third largest exporter of foods in the world. Their farming practices are likely the most environmentally sensitive in the world. But reducing their food production means that if those people who currently get their food from the Netherlands want to continue to eat, their new source of food will certainly contribute to greater, even much greater negative environmental impacts.

I don’t think radical climate alarmism is reasonable or helpful. Globally, we need to take a much more measured and thoughtful approach in our responses to the climate issues. We need to be careful that our “cures” aren’t actually making the “disease” worse.

1 Like

Your comments are helpful. Yes, the loss of wildlife to extinction is tragic. But this loss in not new. It has been occurring since the beginning of life. The fossil record is a record of death, disease, and extinction–from an EC perspective, before humans. And from an EC perspective, death, disease and destruction is how God creates through evolution–a theological conundrum.

As Paul in Romans observes, all of creation has been impacted by human sin. One of the results is anthropogenic species extinction.

Romans 8:22-24 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved.

Hope, not yet realized, but certain. When our Creator and Savior returns, he will make all things new.

I am not suggesting that because species extinction is inevitable, that is is useless to take action. We should take all reasonable steps to prevent it.

Revelation 21:5

5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

For Christians, this earth is not our final home. We have the sure and certain hope of eternity with our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, where there is no longer any sin, suffering or death.

Well, then there is this:
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia.

From the article there:
A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[6] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[7

3 Likes

Yes, climate change is one of many things that disproportionately impact the poor and disadvantaged. In this case, it is because they most often live in areas where extreme climate events occur. This is because those who have adequate economic resources can choose where they live and otherwise protect themselves–well built homes for example. And what is left are the undesirable locations where no one else wants to live and living in poorly constructed dwellings of materials that are inexpensive and can be easily self constructed.

As Cornelius Plantinga observes in his book, Not the Way It Ought to Be, many have died in tsunamis because resources which should have been used to construct warning systems were diverted to the pockets of the political elites. Although the direct cause of these deaths is a natural event, a tsunami, human wickedness is the ultimate cause.

This is another example of the impact of human sinfulness in the world–a theological and moral problem which cannot be solved solely by technological and scientific advances. The sinful inclinations of our human hearts must be addressed first, for these other solutions to be applied.

Here are some related and important issues. Certainly, many more people are impacted by extreme weather events than ever before. But much or most of this is because there are many more people than ever before.

Another issue is where population centers are located. Take Houston for example. Where only a century or so ago only a few people lived, there is now a major city. But it is in a place where such a city should never have been built, for two reasons. The first is because it is on the coast in an area subject to hurricanes and torrential rains. The second amplifies the effect of these hurricanes. The soil is predominately clay, so when the rains fall, the soil soaks up very little of the rainfall. It rather flows off the surface as torrential sheets of water.

Building Houston where it is situated is another example. If not directly from the effects of the fall on sinful human nature, it is at least due in part to the impact on our ability to think carefully and deeply, and due to our reduced cognitive faculties as a result of the fall.

Most of what I have read about climate change impact is rather like,
“More people than ever before are dying from extreme climate events.” But these accounts don’t seem to factor in the “more people,” which significantly changes the nature of the discussion. Can you direct me to a more thoughtful conversation that better supports the idea that these these increased deaths are due primarily to climate change, not more people. I am asking this, not to give you a “homework assignment” or to simply challenge your statement, but because I would like to know, and am willing to change my mind if there is real evidence to justify this.

Call me unimpressed: their numbers come from voluntary responses to surveys that plainly had no clear criteria as to who was being asked – the article says that the “experts” to whom surveys were sent included policy makers and other who were not actually climate scientists.

Again call me unimpressed: free enterprise was happily polluting our air and water until government stepped in and said, “Enough!” I know the difference because as a university student it was safe to swim in the river not far from campus, whereas just twenty years earlier it was not.

That’s been shifting rather quickly. Over a decade ago my sister (quality engineer at a chip & board manufacturing plant) showed me an article from China where policy makers were worried because manufacturing jobs were leaving China in droves, heading for places such as Indonesia and Mexico.

One thing that is in need of radical, drastic attention is sea level rise. If the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt at its current pace, instead of being fourteen feet above sea level in twenty years it will be just twelve feet above. That kind of rise will require raising the levels of the dikes that keep storm surges from inundating most of the valley here at a cost several times as high as this county’s revenues.

We are effectively engaged in an unplanned scientific experiment where billions of people are at risk if even the middle-of-the-road projections are correct; it behooves us to stop increasing the CO2 content for one simple reason: if the carbon content of the atmosphere can be made constant, the science will be much simpler to do!

2 Likes

I like the comparison that all species are members of God’s “choir” singing praises to Him, and it seems terribly arrogant to be wiping out members of His choir.

1 Like

According to EC, millions of species died through the process of God ordained evolution. Is God also “terribly arrogant?”

Well, for that I am thankful. I think it is unwise to rely on one source of supply, particularly since China is at least somewhat hostile toward the USA. But are you asserting that Indonesia and Mexico will be using renewable energy sources, so they will not be creating carbon emissions in their manufacturing?

If the decline of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic area, and Greenland is a natural continuation of the retreat of the most recent ice age, then it is inevitable that they will continue to melt.

The output of the sun has more impact on temperature than does CO2. So how do we deal with the heat from the sun if it increases?

Further, as noted in an earlier post, climate catastrophe deadline predictions have not proved accurate.

Ah, yes. Wikipedia, the source of all accurate knowledge. Count meemphasized text** as unimpressed.

Hmm. In the examples cited, products are made available to save money by reducing energy use. So free enterprise is willing to happily pollute rather than save money?

The unplanned scientific experiment costing countless trillions of dollars is that if we can control greenhouse gases (questionable), we will stop climate change–also questionable. I don’t know what valley you are referring to, but it will take multi trillions to save it by reducing carbon emissions, and it will take untold trillions to protect it with dikes. "Will require . . . ? How is that required? Like it or not, there needs to be a cost-benefit analysis comparing it to the alternatives. Economic devastation either way is going to severely impact humans. Are you willing to consider other options, such as moving people and farming. After all, it has happened before in human history when sea levels rose. Perhaps Greenland will become the world’s next breadbasket. Why would that be so bad?

I suspect the calamity predictions are severely overrated. I suspect that our ability to control climate is also severely overrated.

Really, making science easier? I’m speechless. Maybe my fingers will still move. We can send space probes out of our solar system, we can create AI, but science needs to be kept simpler, so we need to decrease CO2?

Or maybe this will all become moot. If America continues it steep moral decline, our nation will collapse. No, America is not immune, regardless of whatever illusions we harbor. Then we won’t need to worry about it any more. We will either have even bigger issues to deal with, or many won’t survive. We won’t have the resources, either material or moral, to deal with these issues.

Of course, they have real references from real articles and list them if you want to look at the original sources. The little quote had a couple of footnotes linked in that couple of sentences.

2 Likes

It’s inspiring to see your passion for birdwatching and your concern for the impact of climate change on bird species.

I can deeply relate to this. Every day I just sit In my terrace to watch the birds coming. Small actions can indeed make a significant difference. In the context of regenerative design, raising awareness is a crucial step.

You can start by sharing your love for birds, the beauty of birdwatching, and the urgent need for conservation with your close circle of family and friends. Emphasize that collective efforts, even small changes in daily habits, can contribute to a regenerative future. Engage with others, including fellow Christians, by framing environmental stewardship as a shared responsibility. Encourage conversations that transcend political divides and focus on the shared goal of preserving the wonders of our natural world.

Something very easy to implement is to take or share pictures of the birds in your area and start sharing them in your social media feed. Lets share the beauty of the kingdom, and its manifestations through birds.

1 Like

They’re His creatures, not ours – that’s where arrogance comes in, that we presume to wipe out what nature would otherwise sustain.

But it isn’t – that’s the problem. The planet is warming faster than ever before, and the one variable in the equation is humans.

This shows a total misunderstanding of the science: CO_2 only has an impact on temperature because of the sun; it is not independent.

That’s not an issue:

Just BTW, that graph shows why many scientists in the 1960s thought an ice age was coming – temperatures weren’t climbing much and insolation was plunging.

Increased insolation has been claimed as a cause before, but at least up through about 1992 observing the temperatures on other planets showed that the sun was playing barely a part at all.

At any rate, there are plenty of ideas for dealing with increased solar output, many of the them originally proposed as ways of cooling down Venus.

Catastrophe predictions are heavily driven by politics. The climate models I knew of where I attended university have proven quite valid over the last three decades with their forecasts of what to expect here where I live. We are seeing cooler, drier summers, which was the leading prediction for this time frame, though as things go forward there’s a fair possibility that will flip and we’ll get warmer, moister summers with colder, snowier winters.

Polluting saves money; it’s a way to externalize costs. That’s why in the 1970s there were rivers that caught on fire and Los Angeles couldn’t be seen from the LA hills for much of the year. It’s why there have had to be regulations and sometimes subsidies to get manufacturers to reduce pollution – it’s far cheaper to just pump crap into the air and water.

We can control our contribution to greenhouse gases. Ultimately that means we can control them well. We actually have the means to cut atmospheric CO_2 by more than half in under a decade, though that would be foolish as a way to fix what we’re doing unless we first stop increasing atmospheric CO_2.

This is such a mish-mash of idea I can’t even makes sense of what you’re talking about – you seem to be grabbing bits from here and there and throwing them together with things you made up.

Moving the people where I live would cost many times what all the property at risk if sea levels keep rising is worth – raising the dikes would be far, far cheaper. And that assumes that land is available at the same prices it is right here and right now.

Moving farming? To where?? The world is short of arable land already!

Yeah, when there were maybe 1% as many people alive.

They’re not predictions: we know the volumes of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, so we know how much the sea level will rise if they melt. That means we have calculations, not predictions.

Yes, the science will be easier – any time you can control a major variable, figuring out what’s going on is easier.

This is a total non sequitur. It makes me wonder if English is your first language.

1 Like

I would recommend going to Judith Curry’s web site and reading the material there.

This talk about large numbers of species facing extinction is complete NONSENSE. Extinction is a part of God’s plan for Earth. To make way for mammals, the dinosaurs had to go. 75% of all species went extinct at the Permian extinction, somewhat fewer with the K-T extinction that led to the demise of the dinosaurs. Those birds are a gift from the extinction of the dinosaurs.

As for the current climate, the warmer temperatures are good for all of life. Read a bit about life in 1600 at the end of the little ice age. Short, brutish, nasty. It would be quite difficult to feed 8 Billion people with those temperatures.

Not when the rate is many times higher than usual.

Tell that to the people living where the higher temperatures result in deserts expanding by kilometers per year.

2 Likes