Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[Jason]

COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating an unbearable burden on the environment,

I guess I'm a burden on the environment.   

[kellypope]

Have you forgotten this is America? Where you have the freedom to oppose your government? There won't come a time when all third-borns are shuttled away to some horrible fate. That someone discourages families from living outside their means (see the California family that now has 14 children and who had to declare bankruptcy) should not be surprising. And by the tone from the last sentence you quoted, the "even if" indicates that it's a drastic, plan Z kind of approach. Global population is swiftly approaching 7 billion, a figure which I wonder is even sustainable.

Global warming, global weirding, the politics behind it all, who cares. Plant a tree because a songbird will live in it. Eat more vegetables and less meat because you need the vitamins and fiber. Get a more fuel-efficient car because it'll cost less to fill the tank. You don't have to subscribe to any party's politics; the changes you make can be purely in your own self-interest, as well as in the interest of the rest of the world.

[downtownparks]

becuase the folks who don't believe that global warming is occurring feel there is no reason to change habits....we have pointed out many times that its just environmental stewardship and "doing the right thing" but they don't seem to care.

Not to shatter your point, but I am one of those "nut jobs" who thinks we are far more affected by solar changes than human impact, but I started driving a 80+ mpg scooter/bicycle to work, sold my SUV, I have replaced light bulbs in my house with CFL as they burn out. I out right turn the AC/Heat off on all of these middle of the road days, I have even tried (though failed) to get the earthy crunchy bags to shop with... Not agreeing with the concept of man made climate change doesn't mean I dont want to be a good ward of my environment (dont sh*t where you sleep). It also doesn't change my belief that it would be pragmatic to get off foreign oil.

[BridgeTroll]

Plant a tree because a songbird will live in it. Eat more vegetables and less meat because you need the vitamins and fiber. Get a more fuel-efficient car because it'll cost less to fill the tank. You don't have to subscribe to any party's politics; the changes you make can be purely in your own self-interest, as well as in the interest of the rest of the world.

This I do Kelly... Thank you.  I certainly enjoy your posts... you are a breath of fresh air!!

[tufsu1]

DP...I'm glad you are willing to make personal changes.

I guess my statement was directed more to folks like CN, who seem to think that if its more costly to do the "green" thing, than people and businesses should not have to...and I agree....

That said, (sorry free market folks) but government encourages and discourages bahavior all the time...in the past, the GI bill encouraged buying homes in the suburbs...maybe now we can incentivise green buildings, buying hybrids, making homes more energy efficient....and we can certainly employ gas guzzler and pollution taxes....and if population growth is an issue, perhaps not give child & dependant tax credits for anything more than 3 children.

[BridgeTroll]

and if population growth is an issue,

The point is tufsu...  The people who this is aimed at... mainly wealthy, modern, western societies... population growth IS NOT an issue.  In fact many are giving "procreation" days off... Japan and Russia are two I can think of right away.  Overpopulation is coming from China, and India mainly... Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa.

So just what is the agenda of the British governmental official in the article?

[BridgeTroll]

Did you read the article Stephen?

[BridgeTroll]

Of course it would... but this is basically the GW thread.

[Clem1029]

and the argument has little to do with global warming.  just population control.

Just to be clear, the phrases "curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming" and "even if it means shifting money from curing illness to increasing contraception and abortion" means the person in the article ISN'T connecting abortion and global warming?

Oh, my bad...forgot those reading comprehension issues.

[Clem1029]

Seriously...are you normally this dense, or is that global warming melting your brain or something?

Just because Bridge Troll posted some article doesnt make it relevant to events in the antarctic.

Speaking of relevance, you should realize that trying to play both sides of the street is a good way to get hit by traffic in both directions. You don't get it both ways here - either events in the antarctic are relevant due to the global warming discussion, or they're outright irrelevant to any discussion. In the THIRD FREAKING POST of this thread, you attributed the antarctic issues to global warming. So just because one of your fellow wingnuts advocates killing humans as a way to help solve the problem doesn't mean it's irrelevant - it's a perfectly relevant demonstration of just how far gone you and your fellow global warming truthers are in this conversation.

You seem like you have half a brain.  Perhaps using a quarter of it would be a legitimate goal.

This is called baiting and switching. Kyoto is vaguely 'socialist' and no one could recall a single finding contained in the IPCC, much less argue with the science supporting it, someone switched the subject to an even more ridiculous topic, allowing people to start talking about abortion instead.

No, what you're doing is a bait and switch. You can't actually answer any arguments, let alone provide a modicum of original thought, so you instead need to insult and demean people, and dismiss devastating arguments as "irrelevant." It's your typical debate tactic on this forum...it's just sad you can't move beyond it.

Also, I'm going to assume you include the IPCC in with the "bizarre climate change denialists," given that you tend to conveniently ignore the devastating quotes from the IPCC that basically says their report is useless. Or did your reading comprehension skills miss that part of the thread?

Oh yeah...that's right...reading isn't your strong suit. Too bad debate isn't either.

[tufsu1]

The point is tufsu...  The people who this is aimed at... mainly wealthy, modern, western societies... population growth IS NOT an issue.  In fact many are giving "procreation" days off... Japan and Russia are two I can think of right away.  Overpopulation is coming from China, and India mainly... Pakistan, Indonesia, and Africa.

So just what is the agenda of the British governmental official in the article?

I suggest you look at the growth rates of China and India...and compare them to the U.S.

[BridgeTroll]

Go for it... apparently it is not relevant.

[gatorback]

I never said kill and I don't think anybody here seriously wants to kill anybody to prevent climate change.  If nations limit the number of children a family can have that their decision.  Drowning Islands are real.    Every man woman and child has  A CO2 foot print. It's that CO2 causing the problems like this:

AZUZ: But sometime soon, you might not be able to find Tuvalu at all! That's because the island nation, which is tiny -- it's only about one-tenth the size of Washington, D.C. -- looks like it's slowly going under, disappearing beneath the waters that surround it. But people are paying attention. One photographer, in particular, is working to raise awareness about the situation. Kyung Lah details his efforts to turn the tide in Tuvalu's favor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KYUNG LAH, CNN CORESPONDENT: Imagine a place in harmony with nature. The people live off the sea and the soil and produce few emissions. This is Tuvalu, a group of nine tiny islands in the south Pacific. Some 10,000 people live here, and their way of life is dying.

Shuichi Endo captured these images. The waters around Tuvalu are rising, he says, because of global warming. Erosion of the shores, farmland destroyed, Tuvalu is drowning. No point on Tuvalu is higher than four-and-a-half meters above sea level. The government and many experts believe the islands could one day disappear under rising water.

Endo, once an architect, was so moved by Tuvalu's plight he ditched his 9-to-5 job and started taking pictures. The goal: to shoot 10,000 pictures, mainly of Tuvalu's people, bringing the plight of a small island nation to a global audience.

SHUICHI ENDO, ACTIVIST [TRANSLATED]: "Global warming's impact is distant to us," says Endo. "The goal of the 10,000 Project is to destroy this distance. For example, look at this boy," says Endo. "His name is Peach. He's 13. His house floods regularly. He dreams of a future without the rising waters."

[kellypope]

If sea levels do rise, that might mean a shift in the waters in our area. The Atlantic might flow into the St. Johns. Whether that would be a permanent current is beyond my knowledge. But we should find out ways we might combat such a thing.

Whether it's cypress or mangroves, I have an immense love of trees that thrive in wetlands. We should be planting and protecting these trees as the tides change, when and if they do.

Someone remind me about the Gulf Stream. I have to go do something right now and I can't spend an hour reading about it, but I'd really like to know. I know that if the salt v. fresh balance in global currents gets out of whack, plenty of other things do as well.

[Clem1029]

It would instead be a discussion about how best to describe a dumbass.

Which I have now spent an entire post doing myself.

How do you know when you've beaten a leftist in a debate?

When they start calling you names.

(also applicable...when they open their mouth)

You can't actually make an argument, so you resort to name calling. That might work in kindergarten, but in the real world, it just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks for clearing that up once and for all.