Global warming to affect poorest nations the most

When you listen to people like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck consistently discredit the general scientific consensus on global warming, you might ask yourself, "What will it take for these people to put science ahead of right-wing talking points?"  The answer is maybe a lot.  And by the time they do come around, if at all, it will not be until their beach-front Florida property is in jeopardy.  When they complain about losing money in real estate, they will still be a lot better off than some of the poorest nations in the world.

Rocky Mountain News:

Consider Bangladesh, a country of 147 million people packed into a mostly flat delta region slightly smaller than Iowa.

As the world warms, sea levels could rise 2 feet, or more, by 2100.

"Even a rise of one foot will put a huge amount of that entire country under water permanently," said geographer Susi Moser.

She is among National Center for Atmospheric Research scientistswho contributed to an upcoming international report on the likelyworldwide impacts of climate change.

"And these are not the same people who live in Laguna Beach,"said Moser, who works at NCAR's Institute for the Study of Society andEnvironment in Boulder.

"These are people whose entire livelihood depends on theagriculture in those coastal regions," she said. "Millions would bedisplaced."

Even with the diverse economy that we have here in the United States, we will be affected.  But just imagine what it will be like for countries whose economies rely on one or two natural resources for their well-being.

Comments

[Mitch Duff]

How do you stop the sun from warming?

[Tony]

Mitch,
that's a good question, however because that probably wouldn't be such a good idea, that is why the worlds scientists and the governments are looking for ways to stop/halt/slow(?) other contributors besides the sun. You should take a look at livescience.come and go to the "environment" section. Or you can continue to listen to the minority of scientists and conservatives that think it is "phooey"

[Chris Huston]

A whole lot of people when they review global warming almost instinctively invoke the argument, "Scientists, what do they know?" It's a certain level of arrogance that's so common for the debate, "It was cold yesterday, where's your global warming now?"

A scientific consensus by no means guarantees global warming is real, but we also have a scientific consensus on the orbits of the planets, except for the Flat Earth Society.

[George]

If someone could tell me what they have to lose by responding to global warming then we can have a debate on the merits of it. If all you have to lose is that you cant drive a 9 ton car, then get out of my face.

Responding to global warming means being environmentally sound and I don't know what the downside of that is. I just can't think of one thing.

[Chris Huston]

In the end, really pretty much all the steps you could take to help on the issue of global warming are aides on the issue of energy, which is far more tangible even to those who are checking out sunspots.

There's some discussion of what makes up a scientific consensus here:
http://nihilsanctum.blogspot.com/

[Mitch Duff]

Tony,
Thanks for the response. Does anyone actually know how big a factor sun is in global warming? Also, during the current warming period, how much has the globe warmed?