Judith Curry is one of my heroes in the Climate debate. She is a spark of rationality and objective reasoning that I find extremely interesting. This article of hers from a few days ago is funny and interesting in a number of dimensions:
In the article Judith talks about how some “climate scientists” for who, I have coined the term “climate sciologists” because I don’t believe climate science is being handled like other sciences. That would be a whole ‘nother blog which I covered to some extent in my blog on the amount of warming to expect for the next 85 years here.
Some people are critical of change outright
Whatever change is in the process of happening there are always people who are critical. I’m sorry if your main concern is change then TOO BAD. We have to deal with change not mope around not just be critical. We have to take action and consider if the change is going to really happen and what to do about it.
Hellish scenarios have happened in history. Consider the great depression in the US where many people were out of work and living in hovels. Compared to today such a world like the 1930s would seem incomprehensible. Most of us can’t imagine life without a cell phone let alone half the US living on the streets and collecting in places to pick up food handouts. We still suffer from massive obesity problems not starvation.
Just a few short years ago (20 or 30) there were nearly a billion people starving worldwide. There are still people starving in the world but the estimates put it at 1/10th the level of before.
In the early part of the 20th century there were floods that killed millions of people in a single incident. We had numerous natural disasters each of which had fatalities over 1 million people each.
We had WWI and WWII. Millions and millions died.
However, as bad as all these things were the fact is the severity of incidents like these is decreasing. We do seem to be making progress.
I have calculated that the rate of death from natural disasters has declined 98% (Yes 98% that means 2% or 1/50th the rate) of the early part of the 20th century. That’s an amazing accomplishment. It may be worth a blog because it is so stunning.
The number of fatalities from war is declining and is at an all-time low. This is an excellent article from the Smithsonian on this. I desperately hope this trend is a trend but I do cast some doubt on that in my article on how changing political minds is hard.
I definitely don’t want to suggest that we are at the end of hell on earth. There will be more hellish things coming. There are lots of problems to deal with in the future. There is no shortage of things to worry about. In this series of articles on the future I point out the positive things that could result from technological change but each of these things has ethical and horror filled side that could represent a truly horrible future for humanity.
We are on the cusp or an inflection point where human caused horror is now potentially far more likely than natural caused horror. I will take the blogs on the future and take a negative bent and instead of looking at all the positive things that could come point out how we could go wrong and lead to horrific scenarios.
I have a whole blog on this topic here. The fact is that people have tried and failed at predicting many disasters. This is particularly common for the environmental movement I hate to say. I cannot imagine anyone more concerned about the environment than me. I really love nature and would do anything to defend plants and animals and our earth. I just don’t see it the way these people do. The facts bear me out. Since the 60s environmentalist extremists have proclaimed the death of nature, animals, called out warnings of mass extinctions, death of humans , . . Truly an armageddon of terrible things. Yet, somehow these things have been averted.
Some will say it is these extremists who provide the fodder to keep the society moving towards the “correct” decisions. If it weren’t for people proclaiming that the world will end becuase of this or that nobody would listen or do anything and some of these bad things may happen.
Possibly it is a necessity that there be such extremists to “motivate” the electorate or to change society to produce change. However, it is still hard for me to accept as a scientist statements which are clearly invalid or alarmist. I prefer an objective look and to decide objectively that this is bad and take action. I don’t need someone screaming in my face the world is going to end for me to decide something is bad. I personally need to believe it is bad and unbelievable people screaming does not convince me.
Climate Alarmists try to tell us that the world is going to come to an end
In the article by Judith Curry I refer to earlier she brings out all these climate sciologists who are lamenting worrying about the future. They are near depression. They are in “pre-traumatic” stress syndrome. They paint a picture of people trying to save the world and nobody listening. They describe a hellish scenario where people don’t listen to them and ideas counter to theirs are gaining ground which makes them fling into depression about the future of our world.
It is thought provoking if it were true. Imagine they are right then they are true heroes struggling to save us from ourselves. I am sure this is how they see it.
It is worth considering their point of view because their are many of them and they are educated and they may have legitimate views to worry about.
Climate Alarmism is not believable as a hellish scenario
The problem I have is that I cannot bring myself to believe in any way the scenarios they predict have any possibility of happening at all. Not even the remotest possibility. I am sorry if this seems callous but the facts are clear to me on this matter having thought about them for some time. These are facts I believe are proven that basically make a hellish scenario infeasible.
1) The world has been hot before and it was not hell.
2) 15% more people die in the winter than the summer
3) It takes centuries and millenia for ice to melt on a scale they worry about
4) The rate of technological progress is astonishing
5) The temperature change is < 1.2C for a doubling of CO2 is indisputable.
6) Natural disasters are easily mitigated and we have done a tremendous amount and can do a lot more to make them irrelevant to humanity or nature
7) Nature itself is extremely resourceful and far more resilient than we give credit
8) Humans are responsive to change and have changed in many cases
These 8 things basically make the “hell” scenario of Climate Alarmists impossible to defend in my opinion.
I believe I have taken their viewpoint to the absolute limit by taking seriously every point they have raised and found them to be un-alarming. I hope you give me the benefit of the doubt as I have given the climate alarmists the benefit of the doubt over the years studiously trying to understand what they are saying and trying to see what is really going on.
The big problem with Alarmism
All the things that are projected for climate change are pretty much things we experience today already. Maybe those will appear more, maybe not but to some extent we deal with those things everyday. We are improving how we handle these things everyday. Our rate of progress in dealing with those things is astonishing and mitigates dramatically the long term concerns. Statistics are not showing these things happening really with much more frequency and we’ve already experienced at least half the global warming we are going to get.
There is a limit to CO2 production for humankind. The most important factor is technology. We are seeing a steady improvement in our understanding of solar cells, batteries and technology for energy production. Many other scientific advances are happening and it is unbelievable that once the cost effectiveness of these other energy sources is clear that the whole world won’t switch fairly rapidly away from CO2 producing sources regardless of “environmental impact.” The cost of energy is a basic input to all processes and life. As we improve the cost effectiveness of non-fossil fuel sources the market will rapidly move to the lowest cost energy. I strongly believe we will make this transition well before the end of the 21st century and the direst predictions of 1000ppm or higher CO2 are not possible.
Malthus and other predictors have taken linear uninterrupted or exponential trends and extrapolated till the world is doomed. This has been done over and over and this is simply stupid and never happens. There is a limit to the availability of these fossil fuels and technological processes are advancing so rapidly that there is a very low likelihood of using CO2 significantly by 2100.
Jared Diamond has written books on the end of societies and warned us about overusing our resources. He is not wrong. However, all the societies he talked about pre-dated what I call “sentience” which happened around 1900. Around this time humans have finally really understood the scientific method and had the tools to really manipulate and understand. The very existence of Jared’s books and learning is a result of this “sentience.”
With sentience comes the ability to grasp our situation and to scientifically pull apart the problem and attack it systematically. We have done this with air pollution, water pollution and more and more we are learning to apply this to other environmental issues. It is a race to some extent but of all the possible scenarios where humans fail it is not going to be because the temperature of the earth rose 1 degree. There are vastly more important things that are worrisome than 1C.
Going from 270ppm (parts per million) of CO2 in the atmosphere to 400ppm over the last 100 years we have seen 0.8C. Barring a asteroid strike, massive changes in the suns energy output, massive volcano eruptions or other unknown things there is NO WAY to get more than another 0.8C by 2100. Check out my other blog to see the full rationale for that. Even if you don’t believe that the temperature is limited to < 1C in the next 85 years statistics aren’t showing much gain in the types of disastrous events even though we’ve poured a large fraction of the CO2 we will ever pour into the atmosphere.
If you believe the worst then I can’t help you
If you don’t believe that 100 years of data and a well established set of facts show the trend clearly then you are assuming a religious point of view. Science deals in facts. The facts are there is no acceleration of temperature or seas or bad weather or extinctions or whatever. We have 75 years of data since 1945 which show clearly the effect of adding CO2.
If you prefer to believe that there is going to be step function in bad things happening soon then this is a RELIGIOUS belief not a scientific one. Nothing I can say will change your mind that the world is going to undergo the rapture. The facts are clear. We have poured a large percentage of the CO2 we will pour into the atmosphere and the effects are not looking so catastrophic as first guessed.
There was cause for worry
The simplest way to express the fear is what James Hansen has pointed out which is that CO2 is higher now than during any previous period for millions of years. During this time oceans have been dramatically higher and temps much higher. The worst fears of a direct correlation of CO2 and temperature or sea level has not materialized to be true. The basis for saying this is the last 20 years.
We have poured 57% of all the CO2 man has ever poured into the atmosphere in the last 19 years. The satellites are showing that for 18 years and 8 months temperatures have not budged an iota. If CO2 were truly so correlated with temperature then what the IPCC said 10 years ago in one of its reports would be fact which is that CO2 would dominate all natural variability so powerfully that there wouldn’t be any question.
The force of this enormous amount of CO2 we have placed in the atmosphere in these past 19 years according to climate models is so enormous that the climate models expected temperatures to have doubled the change since 1945. Instead this CO2 has caused NOTHING.
This doesn’t mean CO2 doesn’t do anything but it does mean that the fear that there is a direct significant and high sensitivity to CO2 cannot possibly be true.
Some are arguing 2014 was the hottest year ever by 0.02C. Some are arguing over adjustments to the land thermometer record that have brought the land record into divergence with satellite records.
The fact is the temperature change COULD have been significant. But it isn’t.
If it were true we wouldn’t be arguing over tenths of a degree here or there, whether land adjustments were mistaken or if 2014 was 0.02C higher than ever. If CO2 had the effect promised by the models we would have no doubt we are in a massive temperature spike that seemed unstoppable. In fact that is precisely what the models project. It is precisely why these climate scientists are in a funk.
The Climate Alarmists funk could be because they are upset about the fact we don’t seem to be listening to their cries of danger or it could be because they are simply wrong and we aren’t listening to them. A combination of being unable to accept they are wrong, the fact others see the effects aren’t happening and their losing their “prestige” and limelight could be the reason for their funk.
1) Are we going to prepare for rising seas? Yes, we have to. The oceans have risen 7″ every century for at least 200 years. They are on track to rise again another 7-10″. There is nothing we could possibly do to change that. We have to move whatever we’ve got to move near the coasts or raise buildings, build levees anyway. The fact is there is already a big business in raising buildings. It’s not at all an impossible problem. You don’t have to imagine that rising sea levels means the end of cities.
2) Are we going to make the effects from hurricanes, tropical storms, droughts, floods, heat waves and other natural disasters less? In the 1900s we reduced the fatalities from natural disasters by 98% and we didn’t even think they were increasing. We do it because nobody likes the impact of these events even if they keep occurring at the severity and rate they occur today so we will continue to improve dramatically our mitigation of natural disasters of all types. That’s just going to happen with or without any increase in frequency.
3) Are we, the plants and animals going to take advantage of any land that is exposed by global warming? Yes, we will all do that as a matter of course. It’s advantageous.
4) Will we continue to work on vaccines and medical problems associated with warm weather or cool weather or just any old medical problems because people want to be healthy anyway? Yes we will. Every one of these diseases including malaria and these other warm climate diseases will be fought regardless of whether they will come to more northern climates or not.
5) Will we help plants, animals survive stress wether caused by global warming or human destruction of their habitat or food sources or new threats anyway? Yes we will.
For the last 100 years and more humans have spent a lot of time improving the ability to deal with diseases, rising oceans or water levels, lack of water, storms, helping plants and animals. We have been incredibly successful at this and we have responded to the challenges posed without people having to die en masse. I am quite confident that man has enormous capacity to deal with issues that come up and that this has been consistently underestimated by people making stupid predictions of doom. Our creativity is actually hitting an inflection point and our ability to respond is improving exponentially. Not counting this is absurdly stupid.
The horror picture
These scientists who are so depressed are thinking of the following horror scenario:
1) Water levels meters higher by the end of the century or earlier flooding some places out of existence, making cities unlivable.
2) Tropical Diseases proliferating due to warmer weather
3) Severe Storms pummeling communities and people relentlessly causing death and destruction
4) Animals undergoing mass extinctions
5) Human starvation, man in decline, the world rocketing out of control in a spiraling climate
6) War from conflicts over resources and climate.
First, the predictions of outcomes are not well researched and not good science
Many papers come out every day with “negative” predictions for Climate Change. It is hardly possible to pick up a science journal or newspaper and not read how it is predicted that in 2050 this bad thing or that bad thing will happen because of “climate change.”
I call this the “cancer research” paradigm. Virtually every article you read in a science journal will also mention that this or that will lead to a cancer cure or is shown to cause cancer or will help us learn about cancer. The fact is if you want to get funded, if you want to do research you have to do it about something that people care about, that strikes fear in people. Like it or not the reality is people don’t want to pay for science that says: everything is cool. This is just fun research that I find interesting. You have to tie your research to a major goal of people and to the funding agencies if you want to get funding no matter how obscure or far off the connection you have to tie it to that goal. Fear is the major way this is done. That is simply a fact that won’t go away. I would prefer that science funding was done for purely objective reasons but without infinite funds you must tie your research in some way to goals and problems that the society fears regardless whether your research is relevant or the cause is justified. I simply ask that if we recognize this that is fine but let’s make sure that all the science we do is at least “good science.”
However, with this funding proclivity as a given what disturbs me the most about much of this environmental research is that it is really bad science. In many cases it is on the margin of what could be called scientific. In some cases the work is acceptable but the assumptions are not. For instance, a lot of science today is funded on the basis the computer models predicting 2 or 3 degrees C change by 2100 are assumed and then conclusions regarding what they think will happen frequently based on very sketchy basis.
There are literally thousands of these studies done. Everything from predicting sea levels much higher if this happens or to particular plants or species of this or that will suffer. It’s so pathetic to read these things and see how bad the quality of the work is. The fact it is terrifically hard to know how nature will react to things and how humans will react. Proving something that will happen in the future is extremely problematic and difficult and none of these studies comes close to being scholarly enough to be solid. They usually look at one facet and make sweeping generalizations which are unsupportable.
1) it is not plausible that the climate models are correct or that there will be such a large movement of temperature so basing things on climate models which themselves are unproven is bad science.
2) the scientific prediction of what will happen does not consider simple mitigations of nature
3) the scientific prediction of what will happen does not consider simple mitigations of humans
4) the science itself is poor and makes conclusions that are unwarranted based on a single datum or with limited thinking about the possible alternatives.
Every article I have ever read on the terrible consequences of climate change is horribly horribly flawed on many of these points. They are frankly unbelievable and not good science. None of them I have read so far. This is really upsetting that we are funding a large number of what appears to be useless work. I am sure these people could be put to better use doing more credible work. I have written about some of these problems with this research in my blog on climate warming here.
The most important one in my opinion being the point I bring up about the prediction over food production. It is so ridiculously unbelievable that food production will decline in 2080 I find it puts the entire area of prediction in serious question.
Second, the 10 points I bring up basically neutralize all the negative outcomes
The world has been hot before and it was not hell. As recently as 5,000 years ago the world was 2C warmer than today during the Holocene (our current ice age.) During this period which lasted for a thousand years + humankind and nature did fine with much higher temperatures. There is no cataclysmic likelihood just from this reason alone. There may be uncomfortable changes but the world is NOT going to be unlivable even if we get much higher temps which seems extremely unlikely.
I have a fundamental problem with people arguing against change. The fact is change is going to happen. The only question is which direction and the magnitude. Seas have been rising for centuries. Storms will continue to happen. Temperatures will go up or may go down but they won’t stay the same. It is simply not possible for stasis so if the argument against change is I don’t like it, then the answer is too bad. There is nothing we can do to prevent change. So we have to deal with all these possibilities and all the change anyway regardless if the world does it naturally or with our help. Until we understand a million times more about the climate and have a million times better ability to modify it we are going to be facing changing climate. This is a time for study and mitigation not to try to affect something we don’t understand and for which we have precious little ability to effect at this time.
Cold is worse than warmth
15% More people die in the winter than the summer. Study after study has come out showing that more people die from cold than warm. In the study above documenting 74 million deaths cold was 20 times better at killing people than heatwaves. The inescapable conclusion is that a warming world will produce fewer human and natural fatalities. The IPCC and others try to point out how people will die for this or that reason because of warming world. The fact is that these things cannot possibly be dominant because we would see higher death rates in warmer places not lower. It’s just not possible that more people will die from warmer weather. The example frequently given of France with 15,000 dieing in a heatwave one summer is easily discredited because 3 years later a worse heat wave resulted in 10 deaths. If people know about heat there are easy measures to take to prevent death. There could have been such a heat wave with or without AGW. The fact that so many French died when 3 years later with simple things like a few fans, phone calls and drinking water would they saved 15,000 people says more about France’s disaster mitigation than heat waves. Those 15,000 people didn’t need to die and nobody is to blame for that other than the French themselves. (I’m half French myself).
It takes centuries and millennia for ice to melt on a scale they worry about. The earth will lose ice as long as the temperature of the earth is above the “stasis” point for ice. We have been above that point for a long time. Sea levels rose 7″ in 1900s and likely 7″ in 2000s. Even with larger temperatures the change in melting is not enough to create the horror scenarios of a foot per century let alone a foot per decade. It simply takes longer than that to melt these large areas of ice locked in extremely cold areas. Satellites and other data is showing that scientists mis-estimated the melting of land locked glaciers, missed the amount of melting in Antarctica and that the Arctic has actually staged a comeback. Further ocean temperatures have not warmed enough to cause the oceans to rise. Everytime we look whether it is frequency of storms, sea level or antarctic, species extinction, the coral reefs we see after looking that the impact is less than predicted even after just a few years it is evident these things won’t happen. The antarctic is -100C much of the time. A few degrees will not melt the vast majority of that ice. This is a gradual process. There are scenarios where “fast melting” could occur but these are not proven. In any case they might happen no matter what we do.
We have to rebuild our cities and protect them from rising seas no matter what we do to the climate or the climate does to us. We have to assume like with natural disasters that they will continue to happen and we must learn how to deal with these things better and better. That is simply a fact NO matter what we do otherwise or nature does.
If rising temperatures do happen vast amounts of ice covered earth will be exposed and become arable allowing more land for vegetation, food production, animals and human movement. We can’t protect people on ocean front property in the far future. Sure, there may be some islands that will suffer but any rational person will realize there is nothing to stop this, no cost or effort will. So, we have to deal with it. It’s not good but there is plenty of time. In the meantime there is amazing new stuff that can be done with the new exposed and arable land that is exciting and probably will produce more benefit than the loss of some existing waterfront.
The rate of technological progress is astonishing. In the 20th century we reduced fatalities from natural disasters by 98% with a combination of new medicines, being able to predict oncoming disasters, better building codes, improved emergency response, better mobility, more awareness and many other things. Many of these benefits were seen mostly in the first world and yet our ability to drastically reduce the death rate from natural disasters is stunning. In this century if we just continue to move much of the technology to the third world and we develop a few more things we will virtually eliminate almost all consequences from natural disasters. It is really hard for me to get worked up about storms and such knowing these facts.
Yes, storms will continue to happen. None of the things that are talked about happening with AGW are different than will happen anyway. Whether they happen because of AGW in some instances or are worse we still have to deal with them and we are dealing with them. Quite successfully. I can’t get worked up about these storms or other natural disasters. We are just too proficient at dealing with them and getting better so fast.
The actual effect of CO2 is <~ 0.6C TCS is factually proven. CO2 has been shown to not be the dominant factor over short and long periods of time. We can’t explain the temperature variations over 100 years, 1000 years, 5000 years, 50,000 years or longer. Our computer models are missing huge factors that are clearly very important. We know virtually nothing about the ocean still. Other factors are in play that we don’t understand that need more study than CO2. My blog discusses all these points in depth.
Nature and Humans are extremely resourceful
Nature itself is extremely resourceful and far more resilient than we give credit. The fact is that the ice ages happened and for millions of years most species on the earth today have been through temperatures far higher and far far lower and they survived. It is extremely unlikely that a couple degrees spells a cataclysmic end to any species or to many. It is also the case that like natural disasters species come in and go out of existence constantly. It is estimated there are many millions of species on this planet. It is not known precisely how many even to within a factor of 5. It could be 10 million or 50 million. Therefore we also have no idea of the natural rate of species extinction or creation. It is presumed to be a slow process but it is not known. We are faced with the same point I brought up initially. Some rate of change in species is normal. We are even less knowledge about this than climate. When scientists talk about all this extinction and such people need to keep in mind that many of these predictions were proven false over and over. Nature has amazing resilience.
As an example a model of species extinction exists which depends on the land available to the species. It is thought as a species is confined the rate of likelihood of extinction increases rapidly and scientists estimate a rate of extinction based on the decline in habitat for some species. The facts are that these models have proven to be off by at least an order of magnitude maybe much more. It is unfortunately so common to declare that species are going into mass extinction that it’s become like the boy crying wolf. I sympathize greatly with this movement and understand we want to be conservative on this point but in my opinion it’s simply not believable that mass extinction will occur. Vast amounts of land will become arable if temperatures rise. Warmer temperatures are generally better for life. Life == Energy. More energy equals more life. The human footprint is large on the earth but it is still a small percentage of actual land.
The genome of any plant or animal is still largely unknown. There are vast parts of the genome that are inactive. It has been shown that sometimes plants can leverage some of this historic genome to deal with issues that seemed beyond the plants abilities. There are vast unknowns in the interactions of plants and animals still. It is prudent to be conservative and not assume that plants and animals can deal with anything thrown at them but the sheer fact is that these things have survived millions of years through some really horrific and difficult times. A degree or two cannot possibly trigger a massive extinction especially a warmer temperature.
Energy == Life. More energy more life generally (within limits of course.) That has been the case so far. In order for higher temps to cause less life would mean we are at a “tipping point” of the highest temperature before life dies. There is no evidence we are at this tipping point, no theory to explain that and is frankly unbelievable as a scientist. When such things have been proposed they are almost prima facia evidence that the theory is wrong. It is simply improbable we happen at this moment to be at the exact perfect temperature for life. There is evidence that at higher temperatures for millenia life did great.
None of this is to say there are not things we should be doing to help all species regardless and things we can do overall. I am just saying that if we pin our hopes on species surviving by spending all our money on climate change prevention species will die out anyway. I’d rather see some of the money spent on animal saving efforts than doing computer models that cost billions and are no better than ax+b. I really don’t think global climate change is the big issue for animals and species.
The last point is that humans have adapted in the past remarkably. In the 70s in America pollution was enormous. Our air and waters were unbreathable and undrinkable. Scientists thought it was armageddon. We cleaned up the air and water (not finished I understand) but we did change. Our technology did meet the challenge. Our technology is growing exponentially. I strongly believe whatever issues will be solvable especially if you are talking about a 100 year horizon it is very likely we will be able to do vastly more in the future. So, our biggest goal should be science and study.
There is a bright side that is more believable than horror
Here is the horror picture again:
1) Water levels meters higher by the end of the century or earlier flooding some places out of existence, making cities unlivable. – extremely unlikely and we rebuild cities anyway over the next 100 years due to other reasons. Let’s assume some rise when we do that.
2) Tropical Diseases proliferating due to warmer weather – minimal problem and not likely either as we will have better and better medical technology. Overall it is simply unbelievable that warmer weather means more fatalities.
3) Severe Storms pummeling communities and people relentlessly causing death and destruction – no evidence of increased storm activity. Minimal if any increase and we handle storms really well. It is more likely the death rate due to natural disasters will decline to zero by 2100.
4) Animals undergoing mass extinctions -extremely unlikely. Animals need to be protected anyway. They have lived through much worse. Some may die, some may prosper. It is hard to know what would have happened naturally. We cannot guarantee every microbe, plant or animal forever against extinction. This is nature. This is the process. if some do die possibly this leads to better fit variants of the winner that is the real way evolution works.
5) Human starvation, man in decline, the world rocketing out of control, wars in a spiraling climate. extremely unlikely. The world has gotten better incrementally and while there are many reasons for concern for the future a couple degrees warmer is unlikely to cause mass riots etc since for one reason people seem to prefer warmer temperatures.
6) War from conflicts over resources and climate. extremely unlikely.
Some of these things might happen but for other reasons than climate change.
The bright picture
1) Vast new areas of land in frozen tundra now more livable and arable. Indisputable fact. This could also lead to more resources, more opportunity.
2) More fresh water available – a critical necessity in todays world – if we get increased rain which they predict and I hope happens.
3) Declining death rates – 7-15 times more die from cold than warmth.
4) Food supply explosion – CO2 is a plant food, Energy == Life
5) increased speciation and increased numbers of all species Energy == life. More E more life.
6) A more livable world with less of an ice ball … People prefer warmer world
The thing is many of the negative things are happening today and will continue to happen even if we cancel all global warming and spend trillions. For instance water levels rose 7″ in 1800s, 1900s and 2000s they will go up again no matter what we do. There is no scenario where we eliminate deadly storms anytime soon or that we stop water levels from rising. So, when I say these things won’t happen what I mean is they won’t happen at the extreme level envisioned and unproven by these morose people. We have to assume we will continue to get terrible storms, heat waves, floods as we have for all history. We will get better no matter what in dealing with these things. So, that is a given and something we must do. Therefore the only real cost is the increase over what might happen anyway. That is very unclear. On the other hand few have considered all the positive things that will happen.
This is not a crazy scenario. I believe this is the likely scenario not the horror scenario. I don’t believe the community has considered the positive aspects of a warmer world very well. They have underestimated the consequences on the positive side dramatically and overplayed the negatives to a ridiculous extent.
We aren’t seeing these negative effects they predicted. I could go through each of the things they said would happen that hasn’t. It would be very tedious. I already have tried to point out the things they were wrong about in my other blog. They are seriously provably wrong scientifically provably wrong about things they have said and continue to say. The science is weak and poor on the negative side.
There are many scenarios for a more hellish future world. I don’t believe Climate Change is even 1 in 100 chance of being a significant worry 100 years from now or 50 years from now. There are a lot of things to worry about from where to get enough water to what happens if we start cloning people? How are we going to handle lack of work in the future and robots? How are we going to handle the ability to modify genetics? To create new species or modify species? How will we handle Artificial Intelligence? How will we handle extended lifespans of 150 years? How will our society be affected if some people are engineered superior to others? How are we going to handle people addicted to new things in the future? How will we handle the haves and have nots? How will we handle nano-machines? How will we handle asteroid smashing into the earth? How will we handle nutso’s with access to advanced technology? How will we handle war in the future with advanced technologies? How will we allocate medical technology?
These are things all possible to be serious worries in the 20th century that make Climate moving a couple degrees seem ridiculous by comparison.