Jojo Jaro <[email protected]> wrote: ** > They can relocate to highlands. Bangladesh has some high lands you know. >
Okay, then where will the people now living in the highlands go? It is a crowded country. It is a crowded world. > > Oh!, my heart bleeds for Florida. If people want to live near coastal > areas, then they should bear the consequence. > What about people who do not wish to live near coastal areas, yet who find the coast coming to *them*? Accompanied by millions of displaced refugees. > I am tired of bailing out homes destroyed in hurricanes. > You haven't seen anything yet! You may soon be bailing out entire cities, and states. Are you still sure that global warming does not matter? You also don't mind paying twice as much for food? You don't mind drinking salt water from your well? That is what people in low lying countries now face. Not floods necessarily, but sea water in the water table. > No, I am saying that Global Warming is not real. > Yes, we now understand that. But I am giving you a chance to see the fallacy of your position by saying > that even if you are right, it not as bad as you make it out to be. > It will probably be far worse. I do not understand the physics of climatology in detail. I do understand biology and ecology, and I can follow the arguments of experts in those fields in greater detail than I can climatology. I have not read a single biologist who thinks that global warming might be good for people or any other species. That is like suggesting that another ice-age might be good for us! Obviously, in the end, after many species go extinct, life will continue and species adapted to global warming conditions will increase and then dominate the ecosphere. That will not be "good" for any of the present species. > It might even be good for humankind. > Not a chance. - Jed
