I read this story earlier today, and there was one thing in particular that I found funny. The Australians seem to be very upset that they are losing such a valuable tourist attraction and an invaluable source of biodiversity. They are blaming the reefs' decay on climate change though, which they blame on the burning of fossil fuels. The ironic part is that Australia is the number 1 exporter of coal in the world. I don't think they have the right to complain until they start taking action themselves to stop climate change. If they don't sell that coal, it can't be burned. I realize that those upset with the reefs' decay might not be the ones supporting the continuing shipment of large amounts of coal out of Australia, but until the Australian government does something themselves, I find it hard to expect anyone else to do something (and you can extend this to anyone complaining about the negative effects of climate change while contributing to it).

I heard about this on the radio, and recently watched a most disturbing documentary about plastic pollution in the world's oceans. There's a lot of surfers been worried for thirty, forty years about pollution in the sea, and we were dismissed as idiots, told we didn't know what we were talking about.
One scary thing about plastic pollution in the Seas, soon the total estimated weight of plastic pollution will exceed the total estimated weight of all "fish life" in the Seas.
I'm culpable, I'm guilty, I enjoy a lifestyle that leaves a damaged world, even though I do try to limit my consumption.

Indeed. Australians are second only to Americans when it comes to willful harm. I'd say that it isn't those who are contributing to the problem, which is damn near unavoidable, but those who refuse to cgo nyrinute to the solution who are the issue.

Climate change creates winners and losers. Canada seems to be a winner as it becomes less cold and a little wetter, moving America's breadbasket northward. As for America, if America does worse but Europe does MUCH worse, that is a relative win for America, much like the end of WW2 where Europe wasn't much of a competitive threat to America because they had to recover from the war for so long. I believe this is the underlying source of America's indifference (on the right) of climate change.

The Canadian tundra will suffer immensely and melting permafrost will make Canada ground zero for the return of fun things like anthrax while glacial melting and sea level rise will exacerbate erosion in the northern half and most of the western part of the country. The "winners" of the climate change sweepstakes won't be known until the climate has drastically changed.

Bo, as part of all of the analysis on climate change, the winners have been projected. The projections might turn out to be wrong, but the betting favorite has been established.

Bo, do you accept that if competitor countries are harmed more then we are, that we are comparatively stronger than them?

Of course. That doesn't make us "winners." That is a horrific dichotomy to use in a situation where damn near everyone loses.

It does suck, this is even worse than a zero sum game. But ask someone, would you mind losing a $10 if each person in the rest of the world lost $100 and most people would say yes. You know, psych experiments stuff.

Literally anything that changes the status quo creates winners and losers by that standard.

^

So, are we on the same page then? Climate change "deniers" believe that they are the relative (and in some cases the absolute) winners of climate change.

Some do.

Others don't think the consequences will be as enormous as 'alarmists' have made them out to be. Still others don't think it's avoidable, either because we didn't cause it in the first place or because we can't fix it.

And some think it's a Chinese hoax to make US manufacturing non-competitive, but I'm sure they don't matter, no one would have paid attention to someone who said something that outrageous.

@Hauta would you say that nuclear war creates "winners" because some countries lose less than others?

Fuck political realism.

Man-made climate change is going to cause an extinction event unprecedented for tens of millions of years. Human civilisation will survive but we definitely live in the last generation where everything doesn't go absolutely to shit.

And Canada may be warmer, but it doesn't have the rich soils that developed further south where there has been warmer grassland ecosystems for millenia. Good luck turning taiga into a breadbasket.

Massive disruption will be devastating everywhere. Guaranteed everyone standard of living drops, even for those less harmed

Still we have some idea who the winners are likely to be: rats, cockroaches, jellyfish, and a number of mold species. Humans are not on that list

I find it hard to define winners and losers here. Short term sure. But with climate change it's literally the one issue I can't look at and see how any person could come out on top; if our only viable planet for human life becomes uninhabitable. Of course if a group of people found a way to live off earth independently an permanently then sure someone could theoretically win. But as of now I can't see a potential winner.

Climate change creates a few winners in exchange for billions of losers. Seems fair, and consistent with the Republican top-1% agenda.

@Constipcension, nuclear war creates total losses for all. Doesn't mean it won't happen, especially if someone thinks that they can survive underground indefinitely. In that case, nuclear war would create a "winner". Viva political realism!

Wait, so now you're against winners and losers? It was your distinction to begin with.

Even if they did, Byron, they'd be living in a box, not on a beautiful earth. Still, losers.

What's most likely is that industrial agriculture collapses with significant starvation and a population crash taking pretty much all economic structures with it. everyone ends up poorer.

Climate change will always occur, but we are now at the point where we can change or at least slow it down. Denying it is happening is just ignoring it until it's too late to adjust it.

Tomorrow it's expected to have a record high of 95F in Tucson, Arizona. Breaks a 110 year old record if it happens. I suppose it's less damaging than the east coast snow storms.

For now. When that record tops 125F expect to find a lot of bodies

The National Weather Service moved the official recording station of Phoenix, AZ to a cooler location after it hit 124F. So the next time it got hotter it was listed 4F lower at 122F.

Please visit the Pacific Islands now as they will not be around much longer..unlike the legacy of apathy that has infected the western world ..we know the issue we know the solutions but in the end play web dip. and eat burgers and soda, apathy breeds ..ohh I cant be bothered ................................

I play web dip when I need a break from advocating for climate change policy and environmental policy. I'm doing all that I know how todo.

Randomizer: Did that actually happen?