27, not that it matters   



True, I don't see a China-America War anytime soon, who would make all our toys?



I don't think anyone sees the EU as a weak military power, especially when you combine the "big 3" (France, Germany and United Kingdom) which have some of the most technologically advanced fighting forces in the world (especially Britain, whos navy is about to start rolling out the most technologically advanced ships and subs in the world). Granted the EU is not powerful in an OBVIOUS way and probably wouldn't do well in a non-nuclear World War type scenario, but that can be said of any modern army.

scientists, democrats, eco-terrorist groups, doom callers, people who just like to complain.
take your pick.

it doesnt need to be thousands of scientists, it needs to be a few vocal and listened to scientists versus many not-so-vocal and very ignored scientists.

and I'm quite certain countries would not want to starve themselves and create massive inflation just because they refuse to give third world countries some super-wheat.

yeah, what the hell would we do without toys, for godssake.

well no, but in terms of production they are WAY behind.

oh, dont worry. America will always save the damsel in distress

no, Europe has an impressive military, but the thing is that they shouldnt try to consolidate and organize the military. it may sound stupid, but I believe that each country would be better off fighting with independant strategy than trying a failed coordination of larger forces.

Hmmm, sounds like Greenland and Canada (and maybe Russia) will be the net beneficiaries of Global Warming.

Greenlanders will have more usable land as their glaciers melt. Their average temperature will also become slightly more comfortable as well.

Canada's average temperature will also increase. This could help northern Canada to become more comfortable for settlement expansion. It's soon to be melted Northwest Passage could become useful for shipping as well. Of course, the U.S. government has already said it won't obey international law in regards to Canada's and Greenland's claim on the Northwest Passage. So the Northwest Passage will become a boon for the U.S. as well.

Also, Canada has 3 major cities, but only 1 of them is actually on the coast (Vancouver). But even in Vancouver's case, rising sea level won't have much impact because the city quickly rises into the mountains. Because of the terrain, Vancouver could possibly be diked off.

Now compare those effects of Global Warming to everywhere else on the planet. Most countries with coastal cities will lose their cities. The Netherlands are probably screwed. Many Asian countries will be screwed right along with them. The U.S. will eventually lose Florida and New Orleans (as well as suffer serious economic loses in diking off all its critical coastal cities).

The U.S. will probably also suffer some serious population displacement as desperate Mexicans migrate north into an already climate change damaged America. Probably many Americans will migrate up into Canada as well.

Now the real question from here will be whether;
1. The U.S. decides to finally just militarily take over Canada for its resources/land needs, or
2. The richer Northern U.S. states decide to break away and join Canada

Any bets?

Whatever happens, it should be a pretty interesting time to be living.

8year old boy: look look, up in the sky its superman!
Dad: no my son.. its the season of raining nukes. Lets get in the bomb shelter before the storm.
8year old boy: yes pa.

That is what i think, if i get a son, will say

The way the Dad (you) said that, it sounded like the season happens every year, so technically you both would've been dead from radiation.

unlikely, its a spit on the ocean.

ahahahaha...
1) not climate damaged
2) migrate to canada...
ahahahha....

I seriously question your sanity
how about neither? both of those are extremely far fetched, like "look, a government conspiracy to place cows on the moon before humans!"

Since I live in New England and don't really like America...I like this option better!

I had this image in my head, of a farmer and his son, out in the feild, long away from the citys. Where i bet the nukes would hit when ever theres something to hit
And it happens about the same time every year. So thats why the "dad" said it was the nuke season.

But who knows how the earth will change to, if something like that would happen?!
Maybe we will have 2 headed cows and big gekkos running around cough..fallout..sniff..

your fine with your own opinion, but for the sake of understanding; why?

Well, eight years ago I wasn't really into politics.

Ok, I don't wish to start a Democrat vs. Republican fight or a Bush is good vs Bush is bad, but the main reason is *cough* Bush *cough*


C'mon, why do you think the rest of the world hates us? Going to the middle east does not help. I know that people needed help there but the fact that their governments were part of the cause of it means that somebody there should've started a revolution.

----
Katrina (the relief was LATE)
----
Nothing about Global Warming
----
Multianna, he called people from Denmark Denmarkians!
----
I'll think of more stuff later.
----
Nobody hates Canada.

Please, PLEASE, PLEASE don't let this turn into a political views/ war in Iraq fight. Everyone is intitled to their opinion.

well yes, but turning up your nose at one of the best countries out there is not easily dismissed. its also got to do with you condemning a country because of a figurehead...

Hey Schem, define "BEST" country out there please.

Is the U.S. the best because of its multi tier justice/medical/academic systems?

Is the U.S. the best because of its aggressive foreign policies?

Is the U.S. the best because of its massive dept?

Is the U.S. the best because it disregards established international law when it suits its purposes?

Is the U.S. the best because of its high gas consumption?

Is the U.S. the best because several of its states are running out of ground water?

Dude, wake up. The U.S. has some serious issues that threaten its long term viability. I really want the U.S. to stay healthy and solid. But Americans need to face up to some of their problems in order to actually deal with them.

As for your 'its not our fault, it is the figurehead' comment, keep in mind Americans voted him into office twice. That lays any blame directly at the feet of the voters.

Also, I was only semi serious about the Northern States joining Canada. However, the loosely structured nature of the U.S.s individual states means that the possibility is always there. If a general collapse in regards to environment/politics/population were to occur in the southern states (where it is more likely to occur), Northern States might consider abandoning ship and joining Canada. It's not like the Southern States would be in a position to stop them.

Question: What makes humans decide what is the best climate for the earth?

What we can survive in.

just about any definition, education, economy, civil liberties, democracy, technology etc. puts America in the top few. the general oversight also does so.

all of your examples are massive exagurations. well, excluding the one about agressive foreign politics.
I would be a little less arrogant in the way you word your arguement, its very limited in scope, and you place a lot of weight on it.

way to twist my words, you should be a politician
I never said anything remotely akin to this, I said that he was nosing up based on the broad actions largely attributed to one man.

what country doesnt have issues that it tries to ignore? America is perhaps the best at adressing those to!

no, in fact that deteriorates your arguement. Canada is largely structured differently, and those northern states (progressors of some very strong policies that the Canadians dont like, including capitol punishment) are the least likely to do so.

see, thing is that the states are rather interwoven. such action would be real folly, and I seriously doubt anyone would promote dissolving the union simply because we have the power to go ramping around in areas we shouldn't.
"collapse in regards to environment/politics/population" what the hell does that mean? people will get upset with one another? the environment will be poluted? the population will be annoyingly verbal?
welcome to the 21st century, latecomer.

Hey,   

Mars is also suffering from global warming. About the same rate as Earth.

But this doesn't mean that I believe that pollution is a good thing. I'm just saying that I don't think that we are the only cause of global warming, although I do believe that we only contribute a little bit.

Linkies   

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sciencetech/homepage/article_1643955.php
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Just my two cents.   

Alright Schem, my humorous (yet silly) predictions concerning the Northern States joining Canada likely won't happen any time soon (if ever). But eroding U.S. civil rights, water tables, education, financial stability, foreign relations are all going to equate to a lot of trouble. I am betting it will be a lot more trouble for the U.S. than you seem to believe.

Also, I am concerned with the U.S. ignoring international law whenever it pleases...but this actually might be solved with a new administration in office.

if one of the biggest 6 issues in America is that the water table is not conveniently located all over the place, well. thank god.
education, financial stability arent issues. foreign relations are still stable, if a bit aggitated, and civil rights (while there is a case to argue they are erroding) is not in as much difficult terrain as it has been for the past 200 so years.

just question where all of those policies come from.

"Just question where all those policies come from"? Sorry buddy, I am not sure what you meant by that.

From the NOAA records:

NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE - DENVER, COLORADO
ANNUAL TEMPERATURE, RAINFALL, AND SNOWFALL EXTREMES

10 WARMEST YEARS 15 WETTEST YEARS 15 SNOWIEST SEASONS
(1873-2005) (1872-2005) (1882-2005)

54.8 1934 23.31 1967 118.7 1908-09
54.1 1981 22.96 1909, 1973 99.3 1958-59
53.5 1933, 1954 21.87 1965 98.9 1913-14
53.3 1994 21.58 1957 94.9 1972-73
52.9 1939 21.52 1969 93.5 1946-47
52.8 1946 21.43 1891 91.5 1973-74
52.7 1915 21.42 1923 90.5 1943-44
52.6 1943,1977 20.95 1999 85.7 1923-24
52.4 1931 20.36 1979 85.6 1906-07
52.3 1921 20.32 1991 85.5 1979-80
20.19 1983 84.5 1951-52
20.12 1876 81.6 1982-83
20.03 1987 81.5 1930-31
19.61 1914 80.9 1983-84
19.59 1997 80.6 1928-29, 1960-61

10 COLDEST YEARS 15 DRIEST YEARS 15 LEAST SNOWIEST SEASONS
(1873-2005) (1872-2005) (1882-2005)

47.6 1911 7.48 2002 20.8 1888-89
48.0 1891 7.51 1954 25.5 1887-88
48.2 1880 7.58 1939 26.6 1981-82
48.3 1951, 1983 7.75 1911 27.2 1903-04
48.4 1913 8.45 1962 27.5 1945-46
48.7 1929, 1997 8.48 1893 28.2 1886-87
48.8 1883, 1895, 1899 8.93 1934 30.2 2001-02
1968 9.03 1943 30.4 2005-06
48.9 1892. 1923, 1961 9.10 1901 31.5 1910-11
1985 9.12 1930 32.3 1901-02, 1924-25
49.0 1873 9.24 1917 33.3 1968-69
49.1 1898, 1905 9.33 1890, 1899 34.6 1976-77
9.50 1903 36.3 1942-43, 1962-63
9.51 1888 37.0 1894-95


- Temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit.

- Precipitation and Snowfall amounts in inches.

- Average Annual Temperature is 50.1 degrees (from 1971-2000 data).

- Average Annual Precipitation is 15.81 inches (from 1971-2000 data).

- Average Seasonal (July 1 to June 30) Snowfall is 61.7 inches (from 1971-2000 data).

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

9 of the 12 warmest years before 1955.

all of those "international policies" originate largely from Europe. it makes sense if you look at it from that perspective. many of them are outdated and counterproductive
1967 UN convention banned nuclear weapons in space. thanks to that we dont have an actual space program, and decades of possible progress have been completely halted.
what dicks, politicians.

Due to your prefix sentence one could infer that by actual space program you meant weapon in space program. Meh I could be wrong on this point because I don't brother reading all of TLDR above.

nope. for those with a little less history under their belts:
"Nuclear Pulse Propulsion"
in the history of proposed propulsion, this was the most feasible for our time period.

Agreement and acomplishment are two different things.

It should be duely noted that the European countries are small and already dont produce too much polution.

This movement is mostly to make the people in the small countries feel like they are changing the world. When in actuality if the same money was put forth to convincing USA and China to reduce polution, well then myabe wed get somewhere.

in China and Europe thats a well placed system, as both have their economies shackled to the ground.
America, being a populace-run economy, will not benefit from such talks. right now the best thing to do is to convince from the populace upwards, after all, if no one drives gasolene cars, who would make them?