TOPIC:

Throw some of that global warming at South Dakota because it hasn't arrived yet.

Kawboy wrote:

 
I'll just put on my thinking cap and ponder this for a moment. I don't always have all the answers but.......
Humans find it very hard to adopt change and for the most part will do ANYTHING to work around not having to make a change. If you've always said "I'll never move" and then find yourself surrounded by wildfires, you will move or die. So, are we there yet?? Most would say "there's no Global warming and I'm not changing my ways. Who cares if I as one person refuses to make a change. The rest of you can change if you want but I'm not changing." Sounds familiar??
Now what happens if the government steps in and makes new laws or taxes on hydrocarbon emissions. If you don't change, you'll be facing fines or taxes. One way or another you will finally have to make the change.
So whatever replaces the existing will create new jobs and it would be in the best interest of all if that replacement happened in the place that the old system was. So I would speculate that as an example Oil was out, the Alberta government would offer tax incentives to locate the new businesses to their province to offset the loss of the jobs that just got vaporized .
My son works for Schlumberger Oil Well Services, an international company worth billions and you can bet your ass that if oil wells are no longer needed, Schlumberger will open up new business rather than throwing in the towel. life will continue and sure, there will be those scrambling to find their place in the new world. The ones that will suffer the most are the ones that refuse to accept the change.


 

Spoken like a true progressive Kawboy and there's nothing wrong with that. My issue is that I lack the the faith that you have in government bureaucracies to fulfill their duties without biases.
I'll continue to ask Why
Bill

'll just put on my thinking cap and ponder this for a moment. I don't always have all the answers but.......

Ok, fair enough.
But as this topic is in the news media every day, from the UN, Greta Thunberg, the PM's office and so on , I would have thought , you could do a five minute google search and find page after page from an investigative journalist , the UN,  a university thinktank , of where we are today, where we need to be tomorrow, the step by step daily cycle of what life will be like, the changes that need to be made, as we progress to the target of 2050.
But nobody I know of,  have been able to find much of anything. That in it's self is astonishing. It's something like -here we are today-having talked about this for 2 decades, done virtually nothing , but by 2050 the planet will have burnt to a crisp or flooded - probably both. But nothing is written about what's in between.
I'll be waiting expectantly for your reply- as your thoughts will be your own.

There's a lot of people who think the same way Ted.

In a recent edition of Lancet magazine, they found that about 600,000 people die each year from heat, but 4.5 million die from cold. More heat for a lot of people would be a good thing.

As much as I would like to plow into this discussion, I'll have to abstain. This is going to get very political if we progress this topic any further since it involves discussion of the Paris Agreement and the participants. With respect I bow out and invite you to do your own research and come to your own conclusions.

KB

I'm not Kawboy, but I gotta say it's raining cats and poodles here in Creston Calif. Been decades since I've seen this much water. We've been in severe drought, so even with massive flooding, power outages, PMS (parked motorcycle syndrome) and not even able to turn a wrench, it's all good.

.... just thought I'd try to steer this thread away from it's inevitable political demise