Doing Something About Climate Change

[jordan179]

Recently, chris_gerrib accused me of not taking a stand on what we should do about anthropogenic climate change, saying in one of the threads from this entry

http://chris-gerrib.livejournal.com/322157.html

9 out of 10 people use the "can't be sure" argument as an excuse to do nothing. Try harder

Comments

[baron_waste]

Ye-e-s… and I agree in principle, certainly - permanent government-imposed poverty for all save the Michael Moores and Al Gores of the New Order is NOT the answer, despite their assurances of “eco-salvation” in the new Green religion…

But what, ultimately, is all that accomplishing? If everything works perfectly, this hyper-complex and horrifyingly fragile arrangement will allow some semblance of 20th Century American standard of living for as many people as possible.

And next year there are still more people. And still more. And more.

Hyper-Simple and Wonderfully Robust Arrangements

[jordan179]

But what, ultimately, is all that accomplishing?

Expanding human power to deal with climate change, and any other problems which may present themselves.

If everything works perfectly, this hyper-complex and horrifyingly fragile arrangement ...

False assumption there. Higher-tech economies tend to be simpler for non-specialists to enjoy and tougher at dealing with damage. The reason why is that the complexity supports better service, and the fragility is only apparent because economic systems are networked

Re: Hyper-Simple and Wonderfully Robust Arrangements

[marycatelli]

Some of the tribes were completely exterminated. As indeed entire villages were in Europe by the Black Death and probably by other prehistorical virgin field epidemics.

One interesting thing in Slavery in Indian Country which I read recently is that the Indians in the neck of the woods it dealt with had a chance to recuperate and reorganize after the deaths. It helped.

Re: Hyper-Simple and Wonderfully Robust Arrangements

[jordan179]

I do not know if any one plague ever wiped out a whole American Indian tribe (rather than village) by itself, but since a single plague could kill over 90%, and there was more than one plague, it's quite likely that the wave of plagues in general often disrupted tribal organization to the point where the survivors simply dispersed, either to die or to join other tribes.

We do know of many Indian cultures which had modes of production dependent on the maintenance of agricultural systems which were reduced (almost certainly by plague) to population levels at which they could no longer maintain them: there, whole vast regions were knocked back to slash-and-burn farming. This happened in the Amazon Basin, for instance.

[dexeron]

I love how Daveon's response to your post was "Uh Huh." He skimmed the first paragraph, decided you were just being a denier and didn't even bother to read a single thing you said

Laughing at Daveon

[jordan179]

I love how Daveon's response to your post was "Uh Huh." He skimmed the first paragraph, decided you were just being a denier and didn't even bother to read a single thing you said.

(*nods*)

He also implied that he thought that everything I said was just plain wrong, which (since some of what I said would have agreed with his own position) means that he massively contradicted himself.

Hardly the words of the knee-jerk denier his internal narrative has already decided you are. Ah, but who needs to actually read something before responding to it?

Which is one of the problems with attempting responses to the unread :)

[polaris93]

One thing that needs to be pointed out here is that "the current cold spell" is only a cold spell in some parts of the world, not all. E.g., look at Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and eastern Southern California right now. They are becoming arid, and wildfires are a constant danger. Texas -- the entire state is now a disaster area, and most of that entails desertification, aridity, ruined soils, etc. Daveon seems to be unaware of the differences in current local trends when it comes to climate. A true sign of utter short-sightedness and wish-fulfillment.

[chipuni]

Errr...

Wait. Something's wrong.

I'm a proud left-winger, and I agree with every statement that you made.

Take a look at the terrible situation in Japan. Tens of thousands have died from the earthquake and from the tsunami -- a true tragedy. But deaths from Fukushima are much harder to prove.

I believe that future energy needs should come from nuclear power as the base (for the power needs that occur 24 hours per day); to bring in as much solar, wind, and geothermal as possible (though the first two can't be relied on for steady power), and use fossil fuels only to meet needs that aren't reached by those other power sources.

[operations]

I've been saying that for years, and the French for the most part already do. If I was fluent in French, I'd consider moving there after graduation because when it comes to energy they are the only nation with their head on right.

[rowyn]

The beauty of it is that it makes just as much sense even if one *is* dubious about the extent of man's impact on the climate. It's just the right way to go. n.n

[polaris93]

Agreed.; I'm conservative, but I don't think this is a left-wing-right-wing matter -- it's one for careful thinking and awareness of what's going down in the real world, and as far as I know, there's no political premium or slant to that. :-)

[banner]

Before we do -anything- about 'anthropogenic climate change' I'd like to see some actual PROOF that it exists! To this day, no one has shown any proof that it is happening at all (Just like the 'Ozone hole', there has been no actual science involved, just a lot of idiots yelling at the top of their lungs).

And if they do manage to prove it, I'd like them then to prove that global warming is a bad thing. Especially as we're heading into another Maunder Minimum and possibly a little ice age (if not a -real- ice age) according to solar scientists.

And that statement about '9 out of 10 people use the "can't be sure" argument as an excuse to do nothing. Try harder to differentiate yourself as 1 out of 10' ? Wow, that is just made out of pure stupid.

[jordan179]

Before we do -anything- about 'anthropogenic climate change' I'd like to see some actual PROOF that it exists! To this day, no one has shown any proof that it is happening at all (Just like the 'Ozone hole', there has been no actual science involved, just a lot of idiots yelling at the top of their lungs).

It is obviously difficult to prove the extent to which human deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions change the balance of atmospheric gasses and to which this changed balance alters the climate, because we don't have an alternate Earth to use as a control for an experiment. However, we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, we have some quantitative test results from which to extrapolate to the macro-scale, and we can track average atmospheric temperatures over thousands, tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of years (with decreasing levels of accuracy) due to core samples. So we're not completely in the dark here.

It's easy to see how human action could cause climate change, and hence it's important over the

[banner]

I'm going to number these to try and keep things clear

[chris_gerrib]

Using your numbering scheme:

1) The National Geographic Society begs to differ.

2) No, not really - the seminal work was done in 1896.

3) No, not really.

4) Depending on how warm. The Holocene optimum saw much of the US grain basket as a desert, which is not good for agriculture.

5) Well, that's just an opinion. But by looking at the mix of isotopes of carbon, you can see that the total increase comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which don't have carbon-14 in them.

6) If you'd followed the link in my article, you'd have seen that the Maunder - sunspot link is badly flawed.

[melvin_udall]

daveon is plainly just a prick to be dismissed.

As to chris_gerrib, well, 9 out of 10 people think meaningless statistics pulled from one's ass to respond like a jerk is irritating.