What is there not to believe

From The Times

December 1, 2009

‘Nations will vanish and millions lose their homes to rising seas’

Hannah Devlin

http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/news/environment/article6938378.ece

"A rise in sea levels of 1.4m predicted today in a major climate report would result in the loss of entire nations and the displacement of about ten per cent of the world’s population, according to scientists.
The scenario described in the latest report of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

http://www.scar.org/

would leave tropical islands such as the Maldives and Tuvalu submerged and result in the loss of large parts of Bangladesh and the Indian Ocean Coast.
In Britain, billions of pounds would have to be spent to protect low-lying cities such as London from being inundated from flood surges that could be even more extreme than the average increase.
'Once set in motion, sea-level rise is impossible to stop. The only chance we have to limit sea-level rise to manageable levels is to reduce emissions very quickly, early in this century. Later it will be too late to do much,' said Professor Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, on whose research the 1.4m figure was based.
Vast swaths of the Fenlands in eastern England, which are inhabited by about 385,000 people and lie just a few metres above sea level, could become flooded as the artifical drainage banks and pumps used today become unable to cope with the rising tide.
The resulting loss of argricultural land would be a major blow to British food security. Commenting last month on a climate impact report by the Met Office, David Milliband, the Foreign Secretary, warned that failing to keep global temperatures to within 2C of the present, would heighten the risk of international conflicts over water and land resources. 'We’re talking about a high pressure world in which droughts and flooding will drive mass migration,' he said.
A 1.4m rise could result in about 10 per cent of the world’s population being forcibly displaced by land loss. Coastal cities would effectively become fortified islands defended on all sides from encroaching water. Shanghai, Alexandria, Boston, New York, and Venice would all be on the brink of submersion.
This year the US estimated it would have to spend $156 billion — or about 3 per cent of its GDP — on flood defences to cope with a 1m rise."


Please forgive me for overstating the obvious, but I'm finally beginning to "get it"
So, if rising global temperatures are deemed to be just a natural occurrence and just simply a part of the interglacial period we are in or just part of something about the planet that we don't understand, then the loss of homes, land and jobs, etc. is just a, what do the insurance firms call it? "Act of God!!!" Ahhh. This explains why multinationals and governments maximally influenced by multinationals are happy to promote the "climate skeptics." Point of view and sow seeds of dissent within the populace (grin) so they won't have to retool or otherwise disrupt the flow of profits.

"Only two out of five British voters believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity."

http://news.uk.msn.com:80/uk/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=150868324

So two out of 5 is 40% that accept anthropogenic climate change claims.

"Almost a third, or 32%, believe that the link is not yet proved; eight percent say it is environmentalist propaganda to blame man and 15% believe the world is not warming."
News24

http://www.news24.com/Content/SciTech/News/1132/0ae7a512e7a744ec8df9b0c10a577af1/14-11-2009-01-15/Climate_change_not_man-made

I guess I am totally out of touch with how 32% of our sample population figures things out. Or maybe a great percentage of people don't figure? Is that it? Maybe they just read the paper and say, there we are, just as I suspected, it is just a government plot to raise taxes etc. and believe it because it was "in the paper."

Can anyone help me here, seriously, I just don't know how to deal with such large numbers that appear to me to ignore common sense.

Why do I say this?

Well, let's see.

(1) Everyone knows that trees suck up carbon and everyone knows that hundreds of forests, large and small have been chopped for man made materials such as sailing ships, forts, houses, wood chips etc. As we sit today, millions of trees are still being chopped from the existing rain forests.

(2) The oceans are the major absorber of atmospheric CO2. Everyone knows what happens when a carbonated drink is warmed. Who hasn't opened a warm soft drink or beer?
Our oceans are warming and simply cannot hold as much CO2.
Simple, easy to imagine and visualise.

(3) Our human population is on about a 45 degree angle of increase as shown by any graph or might I suggest all graphs on the subject. These people, as they can afford, use petrol, oil, coal, natural gas don't they? Have I said anything controversial or speculative here yet? Yes, No?

(4) That scientific research has revealed an increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is undisputable. The co-relation is obvious, isn't it? Where have I gone astray?
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, eats like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. How else do you decide that a duck is a duck?

Well then what is there not to believe?

The glaciers are melting, the artic and antartic ice is melting, and thus the oceans are rising. Whether humans are causing it or not, it is happening and we either pay now or pay more later.

Who disagrees with that and why please?

When the hundreds of thousands are homeless and starving, how much of our meadowland, parkland, woods, places of outstanding natural beauty etc. will be covered in asphalt, housing, and corn? Is this what we want for our grandchildren and great grandchildren?

We are already consuming more than the planet can supply sustainably.

I am sorry, but swapping tungsten light bulbs for long life bulbs that pop in 3 months and cannot be thrown in the rubbish is just NOT the answer.