Scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration believe believe more air pollution could trigger another disastrous ice age, NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher said Tuesday. He said the conclusion was controversial and "not yet fully accepted in the scientific community".
I also notice that many of these are siting smog or pollution as a problem. The thinking is that it'll block the sunlight and cause the earth to cool.
I don't see how a theory on what effect smog and/or other pollutants has on our climate, that wasn't fully accepted in the scientific community, really compares to theories on the effects of CO2 and our climate. CO2 isn't a pollutant, nor is it what these articles were talking about as a driving force.
So now nature is responsible for 100% of the change, even if it may now happen slower. The end result is the same, though, even with the human impact completely removed: the climate change will still happen.
What you don't get is that no one thinks that climate change in and of itself is bad. The problem is the rate at which the climate is changing, which you have admitted is accelerated thanks to humans.
As you are aware, a changing climate forces the organisms that live in that climate to either adapt or relocate. Having a rapidly changing climate removes evolution as a method of adaptation in all organisms except those that have short enough reproductive cycles (ex. bacteria).
So bacteria will most definitely be fine. Birds will probably be fine since they can relocate so easily. But will the birds' food sources be able to adapt? You get the idea.
It seems that if you just want a bit of casual fun, apps are pretty hard to beat in terms of value, convenience to buy and play anywhere, and fresh new types of gameplay. Consequently, mainstream casual board games are still reeling from the competition and will probably never recover. There is now almost no market for new casual board games, and even the classics sell only a fraction of their annual sales just a few years ago.
Though he does point out that before the advent of apps "about six years ago" (prior to the interview in 2015), board game sales rose in line with population growth. So I stand corrected there. Up until 2009, instead of a decline, there was more of a 'maintaining status-quo'.
Web designers/coders, for one.
Web designers are busy creating a resource that replaces a existing tool. The end result is a web-tool that requires fewer people hired to maintain it. There are a multitude of examples. Newspapers being replaced by online news sources. Personal Ads being replaced by craigslist. Encyclopaedias being replaced by Wikipedia or just the internet in general. You want information on a business? Before you'd look in the yellow pages or the phone book, now you don't need to because of web designers and coders.
How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games?
So now we don't go out and buy games on disc. Fewer discs are being made and most who worked in the disc manufacturing business are being laid off.
Or online gamers themselves?...
Now you're getting more abstract, I would say that the online gamers are making money in the same way that professional athletes make money. Or perhaps how gamblers make money. So, that's dipping into the sports and gambling industry.
Anyone employed in the MMO industry?
Now, we're talking about selling games to people. Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games.
This isn't hard to do, just imagine what the consumers of the internet service would be doing if that internet service didn't exist. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the consumer would have been doing *something*. And I can also pretty much guarantee you that the internet version requires less man-power than what it's replacing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be cost effective to build the replacement.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer