<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'bookman old style', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:10pt"><div>I don't know of anybody who seriously contents that global warming is a threat to the survival of the species.</div><div><br></div><div>But significant disruptions to ecosystems tend to cause a lot of suffering. That's where my concern lies.</div><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><br><div style="font-family:bookman old style, new york, times, serif;font-size:10pt"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Dan <dan_ust@yahoo.com><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> ExI chat list <extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Tue, March 2, 2010 6:48:05 AM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re:
[ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br></font><br>
If we look at the long course of human civilization and even humans before civilization, both human civilization and humans have gone through lots of drastic changes in climate. So, like you, I don't see the big deal for adapting. I suppose food production might have to change over decades to adapt to different conditions -- maybe by changing the ranges and times for crops or by changing the types of crops grown.<br><br>Also, if we just look at the last two or three centuries, we see a huge shift in where and how people live and how they get their food. This shift hasn't taken place as much in the Third World -- but that's mostly because of bad policies that can easily be changed. (How? Simply turn over policy makers and enforcers to me for re-education.)<br><br>This is, of course, assuming that global warming has merit and that at least some of the projected climatic shifts will take place.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Dan<br><br>----- Original Message
----<br>From: spike <<a ymailto="mailto:spike66@att.net" href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>><br>To: ExI chat list <<a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>><br>Sent: Tue, March 2, 2010 12:39:28 AM<br>Subject: Re: [ExI] Phil Jones acknowledging that climate science isn'tsettled<br><br>> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty<br>... <br>> science isn'tsettled<br>> <br>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 PM, spike <<a ymailto="mailto:spike66@att.net" href="mailto:spike66@att.net">spike66@att.net</a>> wrote:<br>> > I often see stuff like this, but it is always puzzling. <br>> Can someone <br>> > explain why the average temperature increasing by a degree <br>> or two or <br>> > half a degree in a human lifetime would bring civilization to its <br>> > knees? Are we really that delicate and
non-adaptable?<br>> <br>> My theory supposes linear growth of 1 degree per year <br>> wouldn't be so bad if not for the anecdote about boiling a <br>> frog to death... Conversely at >1 degree per year as input to my weather <br>> model... The observation of <1 degree per year of temperature increase <br>> to this weather model...Mike<br><br>Mike's post makes my point better than I did. We are so very accustomed to<br>thinking of something per year, a few percent a year, another birthday per<br>year and so forth. The climatologists are offering numbers that look like a<br>degree per century. We just are not used talking about anything per<br>century, so confusion results. A lot of teens somehow jump to the<br>stunningly illogical conclusion that this two degree change we are trying to<br>stop will show up in a few years or any day now since the Copenhagen flop.<br><br>This causes what I call the Russians vs
Germans effect. During WW2, the<br>Germans had better technology, so in the summers when the days were long and<br>warm, they beat back their foes and drove deep into Russia, but when the<br>vicious November storms hit, the German tanks were ill suited to the cold,<br>the tracks were glued to the ground in the freezing mud, the engines guzzled<br>fuel since they had to be left running to prevent freezing etc. So in the<br>winter the Russians had the clear advantage, and drove the Germans all the<br>way back. <br><br>In the global warming debate, the proposed change is very slow, but human<br>lifetimes are very short. We end up with the global warming people, like<br>the Germans, having the advantage in the summer, but every winter, they give<br>up the ground they gained because people still die from the cold. Then the<br>global warming ridiculers, like the Russians, regain lost ground. The<br>battle surges back and
forth every year, with tragic results.<br><br>spike<br><br><br> <br>_______________________________________________<br>extropy-chat mailing list<br><a ymailto="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>