Question Is climate change a Good thing?

[Hotman]

****ing obvious if you ask me, of course it is. My electricity and gas bill is £140 a month and anything that is going to cut that down is worthwhile. I also won't get the slightly ******* feeling i get when i print my emails, and lastly i like the sun.

 

[Hotman]

Climate change means that many farm animals will have two breeding seasons, good news for lovers of lamb and mint producers.

From Jules and James Blogspot

Even if one assumes the premise that we are "optimally adapted" to the present climate (which I think would be difficult to rationally defend), it does not follow that changes to the climate would result in net costs.

In fact, our adaptation to the current climate (eg in agriculture and infrastructure, as have been mentioned) is also a matter of economics, technology and politics, and we can guarantee that these will continue to change at quite a rate.

Of course we can all agree that a drought in an area that is already somewhat short of water is a bad thing that will likely cost money, compared to exactly the same situation without the extra drought. However, an increase in rainfall in such an area is likely to be beneficial (so long as it is not excessive and leads to flooding), even if society is well adapted to the status quo. The opening of the Northwest Passage is likely to bring significant economic benefits by reducing transport costs, even though (of course) we are currently adapted to its impassability. Warmer winters will reduce the winter death rate in the UK for sure, and this vastly outweighs any plausible estimate of heatwave deaths, at least for a range of modest warmings, even before we start to consider any adaptation to the summer heat. We could of course achieve a similar effect by insulating homes and reducing poverty, of course, but we are already "optimally adapted", right?

To boldly assert as axiomatic that "change = bad" is, I think, rather naive and simplistic. All sorts of (social, economic, technological) changes are inevitable, and the latter two at least have a strong record of bringing substantial (no, massive) benefits. Would anyone be silly enough to argue that these changes are bad because we are adapted to the status quo? While I am sure that some climate changes will increase pressure on some ecosystems and human societies, it seems to me to be a rather more nuanced situation than some of the comments above would indicate. Indeed, if the climate changes are slow and modest enough compared to the other changes, it might be hard to detect their overall effect at all (on human health, wealth and happiness, I mean - of course I'm sure it will be easy to measure environmental parameters that document the climate change itself, indeed this is already clear enough). I'm sure UK residents will have noticed the substantial northward march of maize as a crop in recent years (for cattle fodder). I'm not sure to what extent this is due to politics (subsidies), economics, climate change, breeding of better-adapted varieties, or even just farmers gradually realising that it grows better than they had thought possible. Even if climate change is the largest factor (which I doubt, but it's possible), it is not clear who lost out here, other than perhaps the bugs that prefer to live on kale (or whatever the displaced crop was).

Living as I do in a country where houses are expected to last about 30 years, I find it hard to take seriously any worry that they might not be optimally adapted to the climate 100 years hence (let alone the sea level a few centuries later). Note also that a change in fuel prices would change the optimal amount of insulation irrespective of climate change. Likewise, advances in building materials will likely render current designs somewhat redundant.

Extropians would assert that "change = good" and that we should encourage change unless it is proven harmful. Just to be clear on this, I do not endorse this point of view 100% but the difference in opinion seems as much philosophical as scientific. I think that understanding this POV goes a long way to explaining the differences between the environmentalists and the sceptics (even if it does not excuse the dishonesty of the denialist wing).

I hope this doesn't sound too much like a septic handwave, expecting techology to magically save the day. To the extent that climate change is rapid or substantial (which I will deliberately leave undefined here!), of course it's a threat that should be taken seriously. It is a little scary to think about how dominant the human influence can be, and perhaps a mental model of some hypothetical stasis is a comforting thought in which to ground our personal philosophies. But it would be a mistake to let one's comfort zone unduly colour one's perceptions of reality (or at least, such effects need to be openly considered and one should be prepared to see them challenged).

 

[canveyshrimper]

****ing obvious if you ask me, of course it is. My electricity and gas bill is £140 a month and anything that is going to cut that down is worthwhile. I also won't get the slightly ******* feeling i get when i print my emails, and lastly i like the sun.

I can see it now Canvey becomes the new Ibiza. :stunned:

 

[Hotman]

and ibiza will become the new morocco. All win win if you ask me.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

Britain becomes a wine producing region,
France becomes a barren desert

So, where's the problem again?

On a more serious note, the whole climate change arguement has become far too emotive to be debated rationally within the public sector. Yes, there does appear to be certain global trends, but then this has happened before. An increase in temperature over a period of 10, 100, even 1000 years is pretty insignificant compared to the 4,600,000,000 this planet has probably existed, though possibly not to creationists who believe it's closer to 6,000 years.

In all honesty, the question shouldn't be "are we causing the Earth to heat up dangerously", but "are current trends in the Earth's temperature dangerous to us?". Whether or not global warming exists, or is man created, our primary concern should surely be maintaining a "human friendly" environment on this planet for as long as is possible.

 

[Hotman]

as it stands plenty of old biddies are dying far too early because of the cold. oil is also a scarce commodity pushing up heating costs. Fair enough, we are going to have to trade some small african kids for old biddies, but i'm sure as a race we'll all get through it.

 

[SARF]

Most periods of european civilisation expansion have happened when its nice n warm here.. warm equals more crops etc.. now obviously that is less important today but i reckon a nice warm europe would be a lot more productive then a Thames freezing over type of europe.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

MC - why does "climate change" automatically mean that the country is going to warm up? Most scientists appear to agree that one way in which climate change will affect this country is that weather will become more extreme - so we will have far many more devastating floods like those seen this year in Cumbria and like those in Boscastle a few years back - while rainfall in the South-East will continue to reduce, leading to permanent hosepipe bans and a serious imbalance between the population's water requirements, and the ever-diminishing water stocks.

Yet another theory posited that a potential risk of climate change would be that the Gulf Stream could be shifted by climate change. Without the Gulf Stream, this country would be absolutely bloody freezing, given how far north we are.

My take on it is that no one really knows what the impacts of climate change will be - but that, on any rational, objective basis, if you keep chucking millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, the likelihood of that being good for the global environment is pretty miniscule, whilst the likelihood of it damaging the environment is rather greater.

I don't know about you, but I'd quite like there to be a planet for my grandchildren to hang around on - and continuing to behave in the way we are at the moment might jeopardise that.

Matt

 

[Ron Manager]

My take on it is that no one really knows what the impacts of climate change will be - but that, on any rational, objective basis, if you keep chucking millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, the likelihood of that being good for the global environment is pretty miniscule, whilst the likelihood of it damaging the environment is rather greater.

I don't know about you, but I'd quite like there to be a planet for my grandchildren to hang around on - and continuing to behave in the way we are at the moment might jeopardise that.

What Matt said

100% agreement

 

[Reg Martin]

MC - why does "climate change" automatically mean that the country is going to warm up? Most scientists appear to agree that one way in which climate change will affect this country is that weather will become more extreme - so we will have far many more devastating floods like those seen this year in Cumbria and like those in Boscastle a few years back - while rainfall in the South-East will continue to reduce, leading to permanent hosepipe bans and a serious imbalance between the population's water requirements, and the ever-diminishing water stocks.

Yet another theory posited that a potential risk of climate change would be that the Gulf Stream could be shifted by climate change. Without the Gulf Stream, this country would be absolutely bloody freezing, given how far north we are.

My take on it is that no one really knows what the impacts of climate change will be - but that, on any rational, objective basis, if you keep chucking millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, the likelihood of that being good for the global environment is pretty miniscule, whilst the likelihood of it damaging the environment is rather greater.

I don't know about you, but I'd quite like there to be a planet for my grandchildren to hang around on - and continuing to behave in the way we are at the moment might jeopardise that.

Matt

What Matt said

100% disagreement

An alternative view about recent floods and droughts etc is that they have always happened but we take a very distorted short term view of things based on today's headlines.
It's easy to take the moral high ground on pollution but who hand on heart is prepared to take the major changes in lifestyle that the climate change stormtroopers want?
Anyone who really believes things are as a bad as is suggested should already be altering their lifestyle significantly. Where are these people? As far as I can see climate change campaigners spend much of their time flying around the globe lecturing the rest of us on the dangers of flying to the climate.

 

[Jam_Man]

MC - why does "climate change" automatically mean that the country is going to warm up? Most scientists appear to agree that one way in which climate change will affect this country is that weather will become more extreme - so we will have far many more devastating floods like those seen this year in Cumbria and like those in Boscastle a few years back - while rainfall in the South-East will continue to reduce, leading to permanent hosepipe bans and a serious imbalance between the population's water requirements, and the ever-diminishing water stocks.

Yet another theory posited that a potential risk of climate change would be that the Gulf Stream could be shifted by climate change. Without the Gulf Stream, this country would be absolutely bloody freezing, given how far north we are.

My take on it is that no one really knows what the impacts of climate change will be - but that, on any rational, objective basis, if you keep chucking millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, the likelihood of that being good for the global environment is pretty miniscule, whilst the likelihood of it damaging the environment is rather greater.

I don't know about you, but I'd quite like there to be a planet for my grandchildren to hang around on - and continuing to behave in the way we are at the moment might jeopardise that.

Matt

Thing is if mankind suddenly disappeared over night the planets weather patterns would continue to change as they have done for millions of years.

Its mankinds supierority complex that makes people think we actually have a say in how the weather will behave and if we cut back on burning fossil fuels the weather will revert to how it was.

Personally I think that cutting back on pollution always has to be important, but if theres any expectation weather patters and climate will stay constant for ever then mankind as technoligically advanced as it now is can be very naive!

Mankind needs to adapt and will do so as it has done since Ice Age 1 when the Mammoth saved the little baby.

 

[Mad Cyril]

The people that live near rivers only complain when they flood, not when they are enjoying nice views of swans and narrow boats.

These are probably the same sort of people that would complain if a mosque, 24 hour petrol station or nuclear reprocessing facility was built opposite their house.

 

[SARF]

..............................

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

That's the trouble though isn't it? The whole 'climate change' debate has come about because of some peoples need to globalise the issues. This then forms the entire basis of their argument, and there's just far too many variables at play for our limited knowledge to come to a common understanding. Why is it not big enough that chucking smoke/chemicals/pollution/whatever into the environment is just bad in itself? Why does it also need to trigger the end of life on Earth for people to think it's wrong?

 

[davewebbsbrain]

If its warmer all year round, I don't need to go abroad to enjoy a holiday in the sun and I get to play more golf because it isn't raining every time I go to step onto the golf course, then Climate change is excellent from where I stand.

 

[Mad Cyril]

I think discarded boxes of fried chicken bones are more of a problem for the environment than carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is invisible in the gas phase and you can't see or smell it - unlike chicken bones which look unsightly and attract foxes.

In the solid phase carbon dioxide is known as dry ice and used in fire extinguishers and to provide an atmospheric low level mist for third rate magic acts/vocalists.

 

[MK Shrimper]

If its warmer all year round, I don't need to go abroad to enjoy a holiday in the sun and I get to play more golf because it isn't raining every time I go to step onto the golf course, then Climate change is excellent from where I stand.

When your golf course is six feet under water remind me to dig this post out.

 

[Reg Martin]

That's the trouble though isn't it? The whole 'climate change' debate has come about because of some peoples need to globalise the issues. This then forms the entire basis of their argument, and there's just far too many variables at play for our limited knowledge to come to a common understanding. Why is it not big enough that chucking smoke/chemicals/pollution/whatever into the environment is just bad in itself? Why does it also need to trigger the end of life on Earth for people to think it's wrong?

The problems caused by 'chucking smoke/chemicals/pollution/whatever into the environment' have been turned into a secular religion called 'global warming'.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

When Al Gore was the second most powerful person in the most powerful country in the world, I don't recall him falling over himself to address this issue. After he lost the 2000 Presidential Election to Dubya (go on lefties - whine about Bush stealing the election, but whilst you're doing that, consider that Gore's home state of Tennessee rejected him), he needed a new cause, or more accurately, a new licence to print money and feel self-important. That's all 'climate change' means to Gore - he is the prophet in search of profits, profits which pay for his private jets and limos whilst he counsels the rest of us to drive around in battery powered shopping trolleys.

The delegates at the Copenhagen conference will arrive in 140 private jets and be shuttled around in 1200 limos. If they were really serious about this, wouldn't they insist that the whole thing took place via video conferencing? I believe that Gore is a director at Apple - couldn't they have figured something out or are they too busy casting Windows users as being the OS equivalents of the town elders in 'Footloose'?

And just what are they going to discuss at this conference? They're convinced that the science is settled and that cynics like me are akin to holocaust deniers. Is it just an excuse for a few eggheads to try and get into the hemp pants of some dizzy hippychicks? Maybe they should discuss the fact that mankind produces less than 10% of the CO2 emissions that they're convinced are destroying the planet. Maybe they're going to target the oceans as the big bad bully producing this terrible gas. Or maybe this is just another big scam that's designed to beat down the man on the Clapham omnibus, and they're all going to have a big laugh at our expense.

 

[united we stand]

The delegates at the Copenhagen conference will arrive in 140 private jets and be shuttled around in 1200 limos. If they were really serious about this, wouldn't they insist that the whole thing took place via video conferencing? .

Sorry Rusty , but whenever someone brings this part up it shows a complete lack of understanding or trying to score cheap points. The crap that they are going to put into the atmosphere isn't going to regsiter comapred to the deicsions they are making.
Video conferencing does not work for this type of debate. This is not a multinational firm where everyone is supposedly pulling in the same direction and video conferencing might work. It is politics and big buisness , where most of the work /decision making is effectively made outside of the main meetings face to face where body language is over 50% of the communication.