Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So, I haven't bothered to read through all the posts. We all know where this discussion has gone, and where it's going. No one will be convinced of anything b/c we all come to this discussion knowing what we know.

A few thoughts:

#1. Climate change, per se, is not the issue. It is the effect of a rapidly changing climate on ecosystems that support critters like humans. The planet doesn't care two hoots. Climate has always change and always will. What should be of concern to everyone (even if you don't think humans are the driver of climate change) is the impact climate change is already having on our global civilization.

Civilizations have come and gone, and the research shows that in most (perhaps all) cases, a changing climate was implicated in the declines. It would be the highest arrogance to think we're now so advanced that our civilization is now immune to these forces.

So the real issue is not directly climate change. It's the social implications of a rapidly changing global ecosystem that is the real issue for humans. Wars, famine, drought and the related mass migration of refugees are the direct problems.
.

A big change is the increased CO2 that will help plants grow, which will allow them to generate more oxygen, a win-win for plants AND humans.

After hearing so much about it, one "impact" of climate change that I've been hoping for is for milder winters here in Maine, and I could even stand a little more warmth all year round, and a longer summer too. Last winter I was especially disappointed due to record cold and snowfall but this winter it's looking better so far and I'm hoping that the mild weather will continue! As someone who loves sailing the Maine coast, the one drawback is that the season is far too short to suit me. A warming climate may have a negative effect on civilization in some areas, but a positive effect on other areas, but we never hear about the positive effects. All climate change effects are assumed to be negative ones and that's clearly not reality.

As you say, I suppose it could be considered somewhat arrogant, or at least misguided, to suggest that climate change would have no effect on us, but I think that due to the gradual nature of the onset of these effects, we can certainly cope with most of them just fine, and some effects will be rather pleasant. The real height of arrogance is to have a carbon footprint the size of about 50 average people, and fly in a private jet to a conference of similarly minded folks, to suggest that we can deliberately change climate via taxes on people whose carbon footprints are dwarfed by your own. That takes some serious arrogance!

We've been hearing about the bogeymen of wars, famine, drought, and mass migrations for awhile, but we've seen none of the above, at least that were proven to be due to climate change. If any of the above happen due to one part of the world becoming less livable, it'll happen over a period of time and some inhabitants will undoubtedly move to places where the climate has improved, but that's been happening all throughout history. A couple of degrees plus or minus is not something to get all worked up about, and there's not much we can do about it anyway.

If this is an issue that concerns you a lot (for most people it's far, far, down their list of concerns), I suggest that the best and only effective thing you can do is to lower your own personal carbon footprint as much as possible, but I've seen no sign of the high priests of climate change doing any such thing so that means you have an opportunity to take a real leadership position in this field by actually walking the walk. You, as an individual may well be already doing that, but I see that the vast majority of people who profess to feel as you do continue to live a lifestyle that results in carbon footprints just as large or larger than those of us who think it's mostly just a bunch of hooey being foisted on us in yet another attempt at wealth redistribution.

[Kenomac]

Even if the sea level rises three feet per century, I'm quite sure this 59 year old Neanderthal is going to be able to out run it.

Hey.... Why not sail your Tayana 47 over to the Med and join us for the four months of perfect weather in Sardinia next season?

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Even if the sea level rises three feet per century, I'm quite sure this 59 year old Neanderthal is going to be able to out run it.

Hey.... Why not sail your Tayana 47 over to the Med and join us for the four months of perfect weather in Sardinia next season?

Sure, she's a nurse too so you, your wife, and my wife could all have a nursing convention and we could write off the cost of the whole summers cruise! Sounds great to both my wife and I, but with a high school sophomore still in the house it's not in the cards just yet. But I do totally envy your lifestyle and hope to achieve a similar one as soon as we can.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

I suggest that the best and only effective thing you can do is to lower your own personal carbon footprint as much as possible, but I've seen no sign of the high priests of climate change doing any such thing so that means you have an opportunity to take a real leadership position in this field by actually walking the walk. You, as an individual may well be already doing that, but I see that the vast majority of people who profess to feel as you do continue to live a lifestyle that results in carbon footprints just as large or larger than those of us who think it's mostly just a bunch of hooey being foisted on us in yet another attempt at wealth redistribution.

That argument (I'm greener n' you!) was laughable in public school, and it hasn't aged well.

You can put down your Al Gore voodoo doll. The response to AGW requires policy changes; nothing significant will be achieved by individual actions.

And the financial/taxation argument ("yet another attempt at wealth redistribution" )... the nations of our parents pulled together to defeat Nazi Germany, and emerged greater and stronger for it. More recently, the US and friends invested north of $1 trillion - sorry, over $2 trillion - to ... to ... to depopulate Iraq by some 180,000, to pretty much screw up the rest of it, and to make a nice new home for ISIS.

So forgive me if i find the cost argument against addressing AGW less than compelling.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

I travel far and wide... 'haven't noticed a difference.

Well alright then! I guess that settles it. Please send your findings to NOAA so that they can revise and republish their reports and we can close this thread and be done with it.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Powell says the consensus is 99.9%, not 97%

Jack,

Here's the results from a different poll......

[Exile]

You know, if it's really 99.9%, some of you guys are awfully prickly about those 0.1% of dissenters! But more on that later . . . still trying to get through Jack's articles but Ken keeps interrupting with all that pesky humor. I do like the matching snowsuits for him & the missus though. Very stylish!

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Jack,

Here's the results from a different poll......

AlGoreaphobia can be cured with rational thought.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

AlGoreaphobia can be cured with rational thought.

Like the Arctic ice pack has not in fact disappeared as he predicted would happen in 2013. Or was it 2011?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

You know, if it's really 99.9%, some of you guys are awfully prickly about those 0.1% of dissenters!

Why should the objections of 0.1%, or 1%, or even 5% of the experts be sufficient to blow off the findings and conclusions of 95%+ of the people most likely to know about this stuff?

If 9 out of 10 doctors said you need an operation, you'd be undressed and on the table before they put down their clipboards.

It's a manufactured debate, designed to block further research, let alone begin to address it.

[newhaul]

And the snow keeps falling expecting another foot today at snoqualmie

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And the snow keeps falling expecting another foot today at snoqualmie

Thank El Nino for that.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why should the objections of 0.1%, or 1%, or even 5% of the experts be sufficient to blow off the findings and conclusions of 95%+ of the people most likely to know about this stuff?

If 9 out of 10 doctors said you need an operation, you'd be undressed and on the table before they put down their clipboards.

It's a manufactured debate, designed to block further research, let alone begin to address it.

Not blowing it off L-E, just cynically skeptical given how so many have simply lined up with their respective political party lines. The Guardian, Greenpeace, & other articles Jack has sourced from are not exactly unbiased players, but neither are National Review and the Heartland Institute. Both sides are using similar and familiar means to try and convince, and there's a big anti-capitalist and obviously anti-Big Oil component. Those interests are in turn trying to counter the attacks. That's part of the messy democratic process.

I bet even the 99.9%, if that's the number, would acknowledge that climatology is an inexact science. Not like a diagnosis that you need your gall bladder removed, or smoking causes lung cancer.

The recent Paris climate conference suggests that the efforts of the detractors may not be all that effective.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Like the Arctic ice pack has not in fact disappeared as he predicted would happen in 2013. Or was it 2011?

You really do not know what he said - do you?

What Gore (not a climate scientist) really said:

"Last September 21 (2007), as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I bet even the 99.9%, if that's the number, would acknowledge that climatology is an inexact science. Not like a diagnosis that you need your gall bladder removed, or smoking causes lung cancer.
.

All science is based on probablities.

BTW - Smoking does not cause cancer. Lots of folks who smoke do not get cancer. </sarcasm>