[LMB] OT: Effects of "Global Warming"

JenL jenl1625 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 13 02:55:41 BST 2011


On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Mitch Miller <
mitchmiller at entertainmenttax.com> wrote:

> From: Jeff Shultz <jeffshultz at gmail.com>
>
>
> > Okay, let's oversimplify and say there are two causes of the current
> > global climate change - human activity and ... the sun entering a warmer
> phase.
> >  Let's say, just for argument, that there's simply no way to know how
> > much of that climate change is a result of human action.  Let's say we
> > can't know
> > *exactly* how much damage the climate change will cause, but we know
> > it will cause damage.  Sea levels rise, which means the water is
> > higher to start with when a storm pushes that storm surge higher, or a
> > tidal wave hits.
> >  Storms become more frequent, stronger, etc.
> >
> > Big oversimplification - you just assumed that human activity plays
> > any
> measurable part. This has not been proven.  At least not to my
> satisfaction.
>
>
>
> > In that scenario, having no idea how much of the cause is human -
> > Shouldn't we still be trying to prevent the damage?  Even if the cause
> > is the sun, which we can't affect, shouldn't we be trying to find
> > *anything* we can to reduce the damage we do, maybe find ways to
> > counter the effect the sun is having?
> >
>
> > Because the idea that as long as it wasn't human-caused, it's okay
> > that coastal cities get hit with more frequent hurricanes, that some
> > of them flood out, that our global climate becomes less predictable,
> > that our fertile areas dry out or get swamped ...  Not an idea I'd
> > sign to.  And no, I don't drive a Prius.  But I deeply wish folks
> > would stop arguing over whether it's human-caused and start talking
> > about what can really be done about it, at what cost, at what risk, with
> what likely effects...
> >
>
> Could you answer a couple of questions for me?
>
> How do we know the climate of 1900 is the best of all possible worlds?
>
> Why or from what source do you derive that we have a right to be free from
> climate change?
>

Not sure if your question is directed at me, but in what sense do you mean
"right"?  I don't think there's some god-given right not to have it happen.
 On the other hand, if we can prevent it, I don't think there's any moral
imperative not to.

Now, whether we can prevent it - that's a whole other question.  What can we
do to protect ourselves from it, what can we do to mitigate it...
Obviously, we want to be careful in anything we do that we don't worsen the
situation.

But I don't see where arguing about whether it's man-made or not adds
anything to the debate.  I don't see the relevance.

jen


>
> What do we do if we've prepared for global warming, but, as some scientists
> believe, global
> warming causes a new Ice Age?
>
>
> Mitch Miller
>
> --
> Lois-Bujold mailing list message sent to jenl1625 at gmail.com
> Lois-Bujold at lists.herald.co.uk
> http://lists.herald.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lois-bujold
>



-- 
*

If it moves but shouldn't, use duct tape.

If it should move but doesn't, use WD40.
*



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list