Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
Yes. I see the mistake I made.
But another issue is the worst case scenario where we take no action. I guess people can debate what those consequences would be. We already experience many of the things he describes. And with global climate change and no action, he assumes everyone is harmed and the net is negative. Perhaps some people benefit. Certainly people currently owning ocean front property may be flooded out, but what about the people currently in higher elevations and in colder climates? Do they benefit? Perhaps some areas may experience more drought, but other areas will have more access to water. Perhaps we can't grow food in some places but will be able to grow food in other places. After all isn't change a constant?
|
Granted, the argument is presented in a worst case scenario for both the nonGCC with cost and the GCC- no cost.
I think that the net change could work out in the long run. But in the short term, I don't think it will. Things are getting warmer and sea levels are rising.
During the last 'interglacial period' where there were no remaining glaciers (in the neighborhood of 100,000 years ago) sea levels were 4-5 metres higher than they currently are. A high majority of global population lives in those areas. I'm not saying that those 5 billionish can't relocate further inland, or that coastal construction can't be revolutionized, but it isn't going to be cheap or easy in any scenario. If agricultural backbone areas enter extended drought before the then viable high altitude/latitude areas are developed, there will be shortages of staples.
Change is a constant. I'm of the belief that human activity has accelerated a natural long term cycle. But I want to emphasize that that is not the point. The point is discussing what we will have to do, the costs we will have to inccur, to slow the climate change and or adapt the planet to the future climate.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
When that goof looks at us with those dreamy, genuinely concerned eyes and says "take action", what's he asking?
a. After listening to my theory, please take action to prevent the possibility (even if you think it's slight) that hujmans are causing global warming,
Or...
b. Throw caution to the wind and let Al Gore tell you how to live your life (but please don't pay attention to what he does in his own).
|
So what part of the argument that goof presents are you refuting? Throwing caution to the wind would be the 'spend nothing' not the 'let Al Gore tell you how to live your life'. Al Gore has little bearing on this discussion, will you?
Not to mention you seem to have misunderstood the basic premise of the video: not to get caught up on if or if not climate change is happening. 2/4 of the options are based on GCC not happening. Which of the four scenarios would you select?