[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled.

[John Clark]

On Mar 3, 2010, Christopher Luebcke wrote:

> I don't believe it's controversial to state that a sea level rise of half a meter over the next 50-100 years is potentially catastrophic



I'd say that remark is controversial as hell! Half a meter sea level rise in a century and it's catastrophic? The sea level has risen 410 feet in the last 20 thousand years and far from being catastrophic the human race has thrived as no species in the history of the Earth ever has during that time.

> And it's not because people just sit around and die. They get up and move.

Exactly, if the sea rises half a meter in the next century then on average people might have to move a  hundred feet inland per decade or so, not exactly the end of the world.

> I just don't think it's arguable that significant changes in sea level or other climate factors will disrupt farming, fishing, infrastructure and freshwater supplies.

If conditions change (and they always do) then people will need to adapt, just as they've always done.

It seems to me the climate change thing should be broken down into 4 questions, we can only be certain about one of the answers.

1) Is the world getting warmer?
2) If it is getting warmer are humans the cause for a major part of it?
3) If the world is getting warmer is that a bad thing?
4) If it is a bad thing with today's technology is there any cure that is not worse than the decease?

The answers are; probably, possibly, probably not, and no.  

> The argument can't really be that climate change won't hurt anybody, is it?

Climate change is nothing new, climate has never been static, and like any change there will be winners and losers. However I can not find one speck of evidence that the exact temperature the Earth is at right now is the perfect temperature for maximizing human well being.  

> I don't give a damn about the aggregate mass of living organisms

Perhaps you should, it gives a pretty good indication of how productive a ecosystem can be. If you picked any time at random during the last 100 million years the chances are almost certain it would be  warmer than now, and pretty good that it would be much warmer; and during that time the aggregate mass of living organisms was at least as large as today. 

 John K Clark


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100304/97d91ad2/attachment.html>