[LINK] The meaning of climate change denial

[David Boxall]

On 26/06/2012 8:06 PM, Jan Whitaker wrote:
> ...
> The threat is to the current bio-scape, which includes humans, and
> may really only do much damage to humans because of our reliance on
> human "managed" food production and living near the
> coastlines/waterways where the major systems of modern life are based
> (NYC, Washington D.C., Melbourne, Sydney and London come to mind).
> What will be disrupted is our current social structures. The question
> will be if we will adapt quickly enough to move our major systems
> away from the threat of oceans on low-lying islands/coasts, replace
> the shipping ports, and rehouse all the people who are displaced.
> Will our technology manage? Maybe.
> ...
It depends. I know it's unlikely, but some powerful minds warn against 
assuming that things couldn't get much worse.

Carl Sagan: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather 
like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our 
planet will always be so hospitable."

Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the 
worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet 
Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ...".

Deniers scoff, but is complacency safe?

-- 
David Boxall                         | "Cheer up" they said.
                                     | "Things could be worse."
http://david.boxall.id.au            | So I cheered up and,
                                     | Sure enough, things got worse.
                                     |              --Murphy's musing