• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study find

Napoleon said:
And it’s impossible to say how the researches distinguished between run of the mill “catastrophes” and those supposedly driven by climate change because the article’s imbedded link to the study leads to a 404 page.
Click to expand...

They simply attribute all floods, cyclones and fires to the "climate crisis"
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
Click to expand...

That's the way Earth has always been. People have moved from one area to another since the dawn of time.
 
swing_voter said:
Replacing all our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants is a good start. 30% of our CO2 emissions are from coal.

But America doesn't even emit half the greenhouse gasses China does. Chinese concrete production alone, if it were a country, would be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses on the planet.

Talk to the Chinese.
Click to expand...

It's the US's job to make up for the shortcomings of India and China, not to mention third world ****hole countries.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The population of the world at the beginning of the Industrial Age was less then 2 billion people.

It is highly impossible to feed anywhere near the current population without petroleum and chemistry.

So there will be mass famine if drastic “climate change” action is actually taken.
Click to expand...

Exactly. People themselves may be the biggest reason for warming temps (maybe). If so, no matter what you do, as long as the population grows exponentially, we are fighting a losing cause. The only solution is to cull 5 billion people then maybe the problem will be solved. As you said, people need to eat, work, and have a place to live.
 
Glitch said:
No thanks. Nuclear power plants in earthquake prone areas are a disaster waiting to happen. We'll keep our coal power plants because we have lots of nearby coal. In fact, we have so much coal at our disposal that we are selling it to China, along with a large supply of zinc and lead.

Besides, a warming planet is an incredibly good thing. We benefit tremendously technologically, socially, and culturally. Since 1850 look and what we have accomplished. It was the same during the Medieval Warming that sparked the Renascence, and the Roman Warming that created the most technologically advanced culture on the planet at that time, and the Minoan Warming.

In absolute every case these warming periods have been a boon for humanity. We would certainly be having difficulty feeding a planet of 7+ billion people if not for a warming planet. All you need do is look at the famines and plagues that occurred during the Little Ice-Age. Is that something you really want to return to?
Click to expand...

I agree. Talk about a disaster waiting to happen - and it already has a few times.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
Click to expand...

The greatest hoax in human history is blaming Climate, changing on man and the belief that Government control over our lives will make things "better".
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Why would that be unfortunate?

You see in a free market if insect and artificial protein were more efficient they would be cheaper and thus preferred
Click to expand...

A dramatic climate change that results in insects being a primary source of protein will likely not take place in a free market.
 
mrjurrs said:
A dramatic climate change that results in insects being a primary source of protein will likely not take place in a free market.
Click to expand...

Then a dramatic climate solution is not necessary. Because if it were there would be economic incentive in creating it.

The actual negative effects of climate change are gradual and so there is no need for a dramatic solution.
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.
Click to expand...

I can only speculate how the researchers determined which catastrophes were "climate related" opposed to those that were not related to the climate.

Of course now that I think aboit it, every weather event is climate related.

There's nothing that can't be blamed on the climate. Just the other day, climate change drank all my beer, changed the presets on my car stereo and tried to molest my dog. Bad climate change!
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Then a dramatic climate solution is not necessary. Because if it were there would be economic incentive in creating it.

The actual negative effects of climate change are gradual and so there is no need for a dramatic solution.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Gradual change has occurred in geologic time, we are seeing dramatic changes in calendar time.
 
mrjurrs said:
Prove it. Gradual change has occurred in geologic time, we are seeing dramatic changes in calendar time.
Click to expand...

Prove what? You’re making the disaster claims and the case for Soviet communism complete with mass genocide , you need to prove your claims.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Prove what? You’re making the disaster claims and the case for Soviet communism complete with mass genocide , you need to prove your claims.
Click to expand...

First, don't lie about what I said. Second, you claimed "The actual negative effects of climate change are gradual and so there is no need for a dramatic solution." Prove it or just admit it's your opinion.
 
mrjurrs said:
Prove it. Gradual change has occurred in geologic time, we are seeing dramatic changes in calendar time.
Click to expand...

Something even federal agencies under Donald Trump have to acknowledge.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment
 
Grand Mal said:
Why is environmentalism a partisan thing? Don't conservatives like to hunt and fish anymore? Or do they consider that choking smog and burning rivers and dead lakes are just a price of doing business?
Click to expand...

Renewables could also bring a lot of opportunities to rural Republican areas.

Why Republican Leaders Love Renewable Energy

That having communities, governments, corporations and individuals leading the way in the transition away from fossil fuels have lead to economy of scale and innovation in renewables, batteries and other technology, so that you have a drastic decline in cost.

Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

While also for example that over 150 of the world’s most influential companies have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity.

Exxon knows renewables are cheaper, even if Trump doesn't
 
Last edited:
Moderate Right said:
I agree. Talk about a disaster waiting to happen - and it already has a few times.
Click to expand...

Indeed. During the magnitude 9.2 "Good Friday" quake of 1964 it cracked the nuclear reactor the US Army had at Fort Greely. They spent the next decade cleaning up the mess. Build nuclear power plants in places like Nebraska or New Mexico, where they don't have major earthquakes. When the consequences of failure means that a portion of the planet becomes uninhabitable for the next 25,000 years we want to make certain we take every precaution imaginable.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Because the environmentalists hate human civilization and believe an environment exactly as they dictate it is the objective at all costs
Click to expand...

Well isn't that a pile of crap. Why do you guys always take every topic to an absurdity? I know- because it leads to a really easy to defeat strawman.
Hate human civilization. What bull****. That's the kind of inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric that leads to violence. I'm what you would call an environmentalist and I know lots of others and I'll thank you to stop friggin' lying about me. There's for sure lots of morons out there who you can convince with this kind of stupidity.
Damn. Some of you radical rightists are just juvenile, irresponsible loudmouths.
 
Renae said:
The greatest hoax in human history is blaming Climate, changing on man and the belief that Government control over our lives will make things "better".
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, we know. It's a hoax the Chinese are pushing. Your President said so, so it must be true.
 
Grand Mal said:
Well isn't that a pile of crap. Why do you guys always take every topic to an absurdity? I know- because it leads to a really easy to defeat strawman.
Hate human civilization. What bull****. That's the kind of inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric that leads to violence. I'm what you would call an environmentalist and I know lots of others and I'll thank you to stop friggin' lying about me. There's for sure lots of morons out there who you can convince with this kind of stupidity.
Damn. Some of you radical rightists are just juvenile, irresponsible loudmouths.
Click to expand...

Well stop lying about yourself.

I have never once seen a self labeled “environmentalist” Push anything resembling rational policy.

Remember when the shell drilling rig was in Seattle? Their entire argument was “oil bad” there was no nuance to their argument, they were using kayaks made with petroleum for their protests!

Pick an environmental activist and they literally oppose every energy project there is and they can’t explain why other then that it’s “bad for the environment”

Don’t lecture me. If you were a rational person who saw issues with nuance you wouldn’t have reacted to my comment the way you did

I like driving my car, I like living in a heated house, I like vacationing in Latin America, I like not being a peasant.

You people and your anti-human agenda can screw right off. Oil is what makes all that possible.
 
Last edited:
Glitch said:
Indeed. During the magnitude 9.2 "Good Friday" quake of 1964 it cracked the nuclear reactor the US Army had at Fort Greely. They spent the next decade cleaning up the mess. Build nuclear power plants in places like Nebraska or New Mexico, where they don't have major earthquakes. When the consequences of failure means that a portion of the planet becomes uninhabitable for the next 25,000 years we want to make certain we take every precaution imaginable.
Click to expand...

Nuclear accidents do not make the world uninhabitable for 25000 thousand years. That is pure fantasy. Nearly everyone present at Chernobyl, the worst accident ever, survived and lived long lives

More people died from exposure to materials at the 9/11 cleanup operation. No nuclear materials there, and yet you people aren’t clamoring to ban cities
 
Grand Mal said:
Well isn't that a pile of crap. Why do you guys always take every topic to an absurdity? I know- because it leads to a really easy to defeat strawman.
Hate human civilization. What bull****. That's the kind of inflammatory, over-the-top rhetoric that leads to violence. I'm what you would call an environmentalist and I know lots of others and I'll thank you to stop friggin' lying about me. There's for sure lots of morons out there who you can convince with this kind of stupidity.
Damn. Some of you radical rightists are just juvenile, irresponsible loudmouths.
Click to expand...

It's true...

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Nuclear accidents do not make the world uninhabitable for 25000 thousand years. That is pure fantasy. Nearly everyone present at Chernobyl, the worst accident ever, survived and lived long lives
Click to expand...
I'm sure the victim's families will be thrilled to hear their loved ones have "survived and lived long lives."

The Chernobyl disaster released approximately 100 times more radiation than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 800,000 men risked their lives by exposing themselves to radiation in order to contain the situation. 25,000 of these have already died (20% of the deaths were suicides) and 70,000 are disabled.

It is estimated that the area will not be habitable for humans for another 20,000 years. That is the time before the area within the cement sarcophagus - the exact location of the blast - becomes safe.

A study in the International Journal of Cancer by Cardis et al. (2006) estimates a total of 16,000 deaths across Europe.

Source: Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident.

The TORCH Report by radiation scientists Dr. Ian Fairlie and Dr. David Sumner estimates that the worldwide collective dose of 600,000 person sieverts will result in 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths.

Source: The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH)

EMNofSeattle said:
More people died from exposure to materials at the 9/11 cleanup operation. No nuclear materials there, and yet you people aren’t clamoring to ban cities
Click to expand...
We know that is a deliberate lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom