[ExI] Use of Irony, or Miscommunication? (Was Re: Global Temperatures to Decrease)
ablainey at aol.com
ablainey at aol.com
Sat Apr 19 05:35:14 UTC 2008
That's more like it. Even better when given the H+ bias, after all that is why we are here. I would like to say that the
issue should be discussed without agendas, but in the H+ context it is impossible to avoid. but anyway, on with the
From: Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com
>On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>? Alex failed to rebut anything I said, which is why I took his
>>? comments the way I did (evidently in error). He *asserted* that
>>? anthropogenic global climate change was non-existent, without making
>>? any rebuttal of Lee's citation from a climate scientist. He expressed
>>? vehement *disagreement*--
A quick response to Damien's above comments. Rebut is probably the wrong choice of word as Lee agreed and again apologies for the rant. I find myself doing it more frequently as the modern media driven popular society seems to fray around edges. In regard to my views on anthropogenic causation and vehement disagreement there of, my responses below to Stefano's points should somewhat clarify my position.
> I think there are four entirely different issues involved in Global
>Warming from a H+ point of view:
>i) does it exist in the first place?
There does seem to be an underlying general trend of climatic warming on a short geological timescale. However thus
far this amounts to little more than a blip in the grand scheme of things, but when selectively overlayed with the
time span of homo sapiens and in particular against the modern world. Any increase is obviously statistically magnified.
Greater magnification is then applied by taking the temperature increase in a context of 'since records began'.
>ii) assuming that i) is true, is it anthropogenic?
I have no doubt that any chemical emissions or technology must have an effect on the environment. Even natural
human processes have an effect. The question is to what extent?
Taking into account the delayed effects of causation and climate reaction and the vast impacts of natural events such as volcanoes, Hydrate out gassing, solar activity etc. I think that any contribution mankind has had on global climate change has been minimal. More so that any changes currently in effect are most likely resultant of past events, possibly prior to the industrial revolution.
>iii) assuming that i) is true, and irrespective of whether ii) is true
>or not, is it an entirely negative development?
No, Unless we are talking about an imminent run away green house effect where Earth will resemble Venus in a few
short years/decades. Which personally I think is impossible due to the natural feedback systems.
On the whole, I think that a warmer climate cannot be seem as anything except good for the biology of the planet. At
all points in the past where the Earth has had a warmer climate, the diversity and extent of biology has far exceeded
current levels. The world did not end then and mankind did pretty well and survived all the warming periods in our past.
>From an alterative energy point of view, warming will be positive. More solar, more wind, more rain. So ironically global warming will in some way help free us from our dependence on fossil fuels. From a societal
point of view, It may well involve some panic, turmoil and restructuring in many countries. but this will be over time, not tomorrow.
In the times of Roman occupation, grapes were successfully grown in the far north of England as the climate was far
warmer then. I am sure that any current climate warming will mainly offer new prospects such as this, where crops
which were impossible to grow in colder climes will again be able to grow.
My only real concern is for further desertification of arid regions. I feel the issue of cost effective desalination and
supply of clean water to such areas needs to be addressed. This is far from impossible, just look at Vegas or the
greenery of arid Dubai. We have no excuse for a lack of water on a planet covered by it.
Regardless of whether the effects of GW are negative of not, Human kind has no alternative but to adapt to whatever the planet throws at us, or indeed whatever space throws at us (but that is a different concern and to me a far more worrying one). We adapt and survive, we have always done so. If the sea levels rise and water laps around your ankles, you move. If the water dries up the river you use to irrigate your crops, you run a pipeline. Nothing is permanent and to try to impose the status quo on mother nature is to doom ourselves to extinction. We just need to deal with it. Its what we do.
>iv) assuming that i and iii) is true, and irrespective of wheher ii)
>is true or not, should be avoided at any price, or (in other terms)
>what price would be acceptable to avoid or limit it? E.g., would it be
>fine to sacrifice more human lives, tech progress, life quality than
>would be spared by accepting its assumed adverse consequences, were it
>necessary to reduce it?
I really have to stretch the imagination to assume that iii) is true. That being: global warming is an entirely negative thing. It may well have negative short term effects on humanity as a whole. But even then the end result would be a increase in processes and technology to mitigate such effects. These should give us a far more resilient and efficient world with greater commerce and interaction. So getting back to the point, the acceptable cost is only whatever we need to spend to deal with any changes which actually happen. Costs attributed to avoidance seem a complete waste and a subversion of funds which are needed elsewhere for far more important things. However costs of generally cleaning up our act and reducing proven harmful emissions such as hydrocarbon particulates, which may subsequently also reduce greenhouse gases. Are worth while for there own validity. Likewise for any moves away from fossil fuels.
>Point ii) and iv) are important, because interestingly it appears from
>polls that many people who would be ready to accept important
>sacrifices to limit an anthropogenic global warming would not be
>willing to accept a fraction of them to embark in geo-engineering
>projects aimed at reducing a "natural", albeit equally adverse, global
lol, not surprised. People still think that Natural is good regardless of any damage and should not be toyed with. Ironic really.
>This clarifies well enough how poisoned by neoluddite mentality the subject is.
Indeed it does.
AOL's new homepage has launched. Take a tour at http://info.aol.co.uk/homepage/ now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat