Wouldn't it be the rich, the power, the corperations, the powers that be in our status quo situation? If so why are they trying to hard to sow the seeds of the loss of there holdings, influence and quality of life? They may be able to survive if it really gets bad but they'll lose all there power, wealth is only wealth if you have somewhere to spend it, and corperations won't be able to sell anything to the dead or dead broke. Why wouldn't they actually solve the problems perhaps by creating an independent enviromental restoration agency that really was empowered enough to restore the enviroment?? If the sea rises and every coastal city in the world is like katrina at once then everyone living there will swamp every other city and it will all collapse like a house of cards and we'll take the rest of the enviroment with us as we fall. Sounds very bad for business if you ask me. Why destroy the most beautiful place in the universe especially if you'll go down with it?
2006-09-07 04:52:09 · 10 answers · asked by Stan S 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it seems to me that the poor and starving are already poor and starving and own nothing of value therefor all they have to lose is there lives, which of course is the most precious thing to them but I was refering more to people with substantial money, power, property and influence. The poor most likely would try and take what they needed everywhere all at once, guess from whom, and then it's total anarchy and any kind of ownership becomes meaningless.
2006-09-07 05:02:04 · update #1
To stormy knight, it's my understanding that a great deal of the ice that will melt is above sea level and up out of the water, think glaciers the arctic and antarctica, therefor if it melts and drains into the sea the total volume of water in the sea increases leading to an increase in sea level as well as a lowering of the level of salinity by diluting the salt thats in the sea because for the most part only fresh water will freeze, Therefor your example of ice cubes in a glass isn't an acurate representation of the world.
2006-09-07 05:08:52 · update #2
In answer to your question (and disregarding the homily), the earth's inhabitants stand to lose the most.
2006-09-07 04:56:36 · answer #1 · answered by DidacticRogue 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Take a glass of water and put two or three ice cubes in it. Mark the level where the water is at. Then wait until the ice is completely melted and check the water level again. See how it hasn't changed? That's because while the water's state changed from a solid to a liquid the total volume of water is still the same. The seas will not rise in such a fashion no matter what the global warming crowd says. I don't believe this global warming theory because most things they say can be shot down with simple common sense as stated in the above experiment.
Have a great day!!!
2006-09-07 04:59:08 · answer #2 · answered by Coo coo achoo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The poor which in many parts of the world are also island people. Their very existence is threatened.
2006-09-07 04:55:49 · answer #3 · answered by Irish 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Island nations and coastal cities
2006-09-07 04:57:13 · answer #4 · answered by A 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Humans lose, animals lose and rats,cockroaches, and other verman like the repuglicans will go on, I just wonder if they will blame Bill Clinton for it.
2006-09-07 05:01:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, the one who would lose the most would be Al Gore. It would completely ruin the sequel to his movie, and would definitely short circuit "HIS" internet !
2006-09-07 04:58:43 · answer #6 · answered by bd5star 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Global warming/cooling is part of earths natural cycle.Quit feeling guilty.
2006-09-07 04:57:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The world in its entirety!
2006-09-07 04:54:31 · answer #8 · answered by markos m 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
all life stands to lose everything.
2006-09-07 04:54:21 · answer #9 · answered by jusme 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
"Science politicized is science betrayed".
2006-09-07 04:59:44 · answer #10 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋