Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
If you insist that you don't know the causes of global warming then you
have no grounds for adopting energy conservation, energy substitution,
carbon sequestration, no-till cultivation, reafforestation, etc. as
strategies to respond to it.
It is my view that current climate change may be partly, or entirely, a result
of natural cycles. So, I do not insist that I 'do not know'. Quite the
reverse, I have formed that opinion, as is perfectly reasonable.
I have very good grounds for not wishing to pollute the planet on which I live.
It is elementary good housekeeping as practised by most species. Only a fool
soils their own habitat. I have held these beliefs since my mid-teens (a long
time) and that pre-dates talk of climate change.
There is also, as previously stated, the possibility that I might be wrong in my
assessment of the cause of the current changes. My opinion is my opinion, but I
do not state it as though it were the only possible opinion.
I really do not mind that some people disagree with me - a range of opinions is
a good thing, especially in science. I do mind that others mind that I (and
others) disagree with them - it makes me wonder why they would.
Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to
happen even if all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now
(assuming AGW)?
To quote you, "Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that?
Never!". There is some change in the pipeline, as the oceans and
ice-cover adjust to the warmer atmosphere. That still doesn't mean that
we don't want to minimise future climate change.
As previously questioned, how do you propose to do that in the face of politics
and economics? It is my firm belief that regardless of the cause of the
changes, it is not within our gift to minimise future changes in a meaningful
way. As this thread began by suggesting, it is better to use our resources in
dealing with it.
I cannot repeat enough, it seems, that our reaction to these changes must be the
same, regardless of the cause. Arguing about the cause is wasting time.
We must adapt (or die). We should not be polluting the planet anyway,
regardless of warming, cooling, or anything else.
We can adapt to some changes in the climate, and we will do so, but as
the changes get larger the costs of adaptation escalate. We can probably
adapt to 400 ppm CO2, there seems to a consensus that we can cope with
500 ppm, but I'm not sure that we can cope with 1000 ppm. Even if we can
poorer countries will suffer disproportionately, and the world will lose
thousands if not millions of species.
While that may well be perfectly true, if those changes happen, then we will
adapt as far as possible, or we will die.
At the moment, I see lots of emphasis on reducing *the rate* of damage (*not*
reducing the damage of course) and no emphasis on how people are supposed to
adapt and survive in the meantime. This was I think the point of the thread,
and the point of my posts in this thread.
If AGW is the cause of climate change, and if the reductions being discussed are
put into place, this will slow down, but not prevent, the loss of many species
including perhaps our own. The loss of our own species will be hastened by
failure to plan to adapt.
To reiterate the original point, you wrote that the cause ("what is to
blame") of climate change "does not matter" when selecting our response.
And I repeat it above, and here. If the warming is natural, we have to adapt to
it. If the warming is man-made, we have to adapt to it.
That is equivalent to acting as if we were ignorant of the cause, and is
a flawed position, for reasons that I've given above. That is not the
same as accusing you of ignorance.
I quote "If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action."
Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were replying to
my post.
And you might like to turn down the level of ad-hominem, such as the
"more important things than their egos", in your first post in this thread.
I might. My points in my paras. 3 and 4 above refer.
Have you had a doctor look at that beam in your eye.
I can't find a translation for that. I suspect however that may be as well (-:
To conclude this particular interchange (from my end anyway) I make the
following non-personal non-political points:
I support the OP in the view that our priority should be to adapt to the
changing climate.
As a separate issue, we should not be polluting our planet at all.
If we think that adjustments to CO2 emissions would help reduce the effects of
climate change in a significant way, then we should know at what point the
planned reductions outlined in Kyoto, assuming they were achieved in those
countries participating, result in the planet being back to (more or less) how
it would have been had AGW not happened (assuming that the planet fails to
respond to the rising temperatures in the meantime, as it almost certainly will).
Would that happen before the extinction of our species from 'ordinary' causes?
--
Gianna
http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *