Dept. of State: "Women Leaders from Pacific Participate in U.S. Program on Climate Change"

And here I thought "inclusion" was today's password. Should scientists and what they do be siloed off by indelible characteristics that have nothing to do with the matter at hand? I thought feminism, among other things, was about getting women into and among pursuits "traditionally male-dominated, blah, blah, blah..." Seems to me that the opposite's happening and it's being sponsored by the gov't, as this particular delegation has no men for the women to be among. But by now, we know the rule: All men, bad. All women, good-- unless it doesn't pay well.

Let's just stipulate two things: global climate change is happening and the general trend is a net increase in ambient planetary temperature. Next, stipulate low-lying coastal countries with small land areas and few if any significant elevations are in the greatest immediate danger from the most likely consequences of an increase in planetary temperature: elevated sea levels and disastrous weather events.

Makes perfect sense for small island/atoll-comprised nations to be the most worried. The very land comprising the nation itself is threatened. So now, why limit those who are in on the issue to just women? Shouldn't State be hosting anyone who can contribute and communicate the concerns of these nations effectively? Or is the requirement that only females need apply?

Silly. Well, my own take is that the world is past the tipping point. Even if all production of "greenhouse gases" by humans ceased tomorrow (basically sending us back into the stone/bronze ages), *if* what global climate change believers say is true, it's already too late. Now could we buy some time if we slowed greenhouse gas emissions? Maybe. How much time? Dunno. We have only one Earth to "experiment" with. Problem is, unlike real experiments, there's no way to try to repeat it using a new set of controls or factors. There's only one Earth and no way to get off and stay off it, at least not yet. Or any time soon. So humans and every other living thing must live (or die) with the consequences of climate change. Really, what else ya gonna do?

what data there is for warming looks contaminated to me, such as placing temp. collection points near parking lots and such.

recent real-time data over the last few years suggests some serious cooling in many parts of the world. such as
south pole ice is increasing overall.
last year saw record lows all over the world.
china had a port completely frozen over and thousands of ships were stranded. never happened before.
hotlanta set some cold records just last week.

i'm not saying we aren't having a warming period. warming throughout history led to an increase in crop output in many countries.

its just that these warming proponents are spending/stealing our tax $$$ to do what? create more green companies for friends and big political donors, again? the real science isn't there. people can't even predict the weather reliably, much less global climate change, one way or the other.

the earth gets colder and then warms and then cools and so forth. I have yet to see anybody who can reliably predict anything about what does what and when, or any reproducible evidence that can be studied as proof of anything.

Hear of this book? It supports the idea that the next big weather wave is indeed a global cooling. "Global climate change" may go, eventually, in either direction. Problem is, we don't have direct experience with it to be able to be *really* sure. Volcanoes, yeah, lots of data on those, so we're not bad at predicting them (though volcanoes aren't weather!). But predicting ice ages or "heat ages" ("fire ages"?). Still, not so good. In my OP I suggested for argument's sake that the assertion that GCC was real and leading to an increase in the Earth's ambient temp., leading eventually to a general sea level rise, was true-- so why restrict their meeting only to women when, if it's true, all hands ought to be on deck, regardless of the bodies they're attached to? Of course GCC as global *warming* may not be ultimately correct but if it is, I only said I thought we're past the tipping point and that really, not much to be done. Thinking now, we could try using huge CO2 scrubbers, but powered by what? And what to do with all that CO2? Well if GCC goes in the colder direction, the consequences'll be just as bad.

My personal opinion is that Earth has been unusually hospitable for carbon-based life only recently and that looking at other planets, it seems to be anomolous. It wouldn't surprise me if our weather/climate changes for whatever reasons into something more akin to other planets'. Life'll get a lot more complicated (if not scarcer) when that eventually happens.

Before he died, Carl Sagan advocated for humans focusing our efforts on getting off Earth ASAP and establishing colonies. To do this however requires figuring out how to really do a number on the laws of physics: generate *huge* amts. of energy from small/lightly-massed sources (or some other really novel way), for example. Advances in materials science would need to be monumental, and of course big artificial intelligence advances'd be needed. And travel? Well, getting out of our solar system'd require developing super-fast travel or some other breakthrough tech'y (eg: "warp", causing spacetime to warp around you rather than actually travel within it). Just what's the current timeline on that, you suppose?

And, do this quick, before we lose the chance. At the moment, we seem not to be too interested in this. But a one-way-trip Martian colony has been proposed. [Funded by... the US taxpayer... costing *how much*? "Billions upon billions" :) ] A colony on Mars? With today's tech'y? Without them all killing ea. other, stuffed into small spaces for life? Really, that's gonna work out? No, we gotta go big or go (stay) home.

I have no idea how this ends. Pretty sure I'll have checked out though by then. :)