Quote curmudgen
Yeah, let's blame it on Dubya. Ah, libs, if only more of the things they know so much about were true instead of wishful thinking.
Not trying to blame Dubya on this one but if you insist I could most likely point some blame his way.
This is what concerns me the most. Not the above rhetoric.
Current Earth population=6,606,743,870
Births this year=115,605,175
Deaths this year=47,536,100
Net gain=68,069,075
Source=
http://www.worldometers.info/
The animal and plant communities of the past, undisrupted by human development, could adapt to the changes by migrating, or by shrinking or expanding populations. In shrinking animal populations, of course, there is an excess of deaths over births, by starvation or predation.
Our current human population, faced with comparable climate change, will have a similar choice, and there is now little room for migration.
In other words where we gonna put them? Of course every species has their own natural enemy, I guess when we shave in the morning we are looking at our own natural enemy???
We focus here on sea level change, the impact of which is likely to be on such a scale that adaptation cannot be as a presented preferred option.
The Greenland icecap is vulnerable, and its loss would mean a sea level rise of some 7 metres as it creates its own regional climate, its loss may be permanent. In Antarctica, the recent break-up of ice shelves has precipitated increased streaming of ice from much farther inland, which potentially represents the initiation of a much more serious ice-sheet collapse.
The threat to humanity is clear: such a disappearance of living space (with some 100 million people living within less than 1 metre above present sea level) would represent a virtually impossible burden to a human population that is already struggling to feed itself, and is set to add another three billions to its numbers this century.
