|
|
|
|
|
|
by tracker1
3269 days ago
|
|
|
That was my thought as well... I've even heard statements that a 2 degree raise in temperatures globally could be great for food production by pushing the good growing zones outward toward more land mass... -- edit
I'm not denying climate change, or that humans are a factor (even if relatively small).. I'm against pollution in general, And current projections to my understanding are about 50 years of minor cooling, followed by 150 years of warming to about 2 degrees hotter. It's not a "solved" issue. And I'm fine with anti-pollution stances and policies. I am not okay with using alarmist propaganda to sell anti-pollution, and then setting up systems to reward that behavior. |
|
|
Bear in mind that the 2-degree figure is 2-degrees celcius __average__ global temperature, not two degrees maximum. The oceans are much cooler than land, and the further inland you go the hotter it gets, so at about 2-degrees average warming you've got maybe +3 degrees in Britain, and about +7 degrees Celcius in central USA, which would have catastrophic effects on food production.
Now add in the pressure of vast numbers of people migrating North away from the equator because they're all literally starving, and you've got a formula for civilisation-ending instability.
[EDIT] Also, bear in mind it's two degrees Celcius, which is about 3.6 degrees Farenheit, I've seen American friends get mixed up on that point, misjudging the severity by a factor of almost two.