• The abortion non-issue
• A new kind of surge
• Congrats Cap'n!
• Game over, man!
• Regarding Education
• Trivia Question of the Day
• What Right to Privacy?
• John McCain is 72 years old! [laughter, applause]
• Bug Braaaaaaaaaains!
• Sarah Palin
• Reich's advice to Democrats
• Women's Lib
• On Barak Obama and Joe Biden
• Late Night Punchline Imbalance: the details undermine the headline
• Better questions about climate change

• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007
• August 2007
• July 2007
• June 2007
• May 2007
• April 2007
• March 2007
• February 2007
• January 2007
• December 2006
• November 2006
• October 2006
• September 2006
• August 2006
• July 2006
• June 2006
• May 2006
• April 2006
• March 2006
• February 2006
• January 2006
• December 2005
• November 2005
• October 2005
• September 2005
• August 2005
• July 2005
• June 2005

« Best. Video. Evar! | Main | Late Night Punchline Imbalance: the details undermine the headline »

Better questions about climate change

I really don't care whether or not you believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That's beside the point.

All but the fringe biblical literalists do agree that the Earth has undergone massive climate change throughout its history -- without input from mankind. Viewed locally, some of these changes have happened very quickly. So whenever I see people arguing about whether or not the science is "settled" with regard to Anthropogenic Global Warming, and whether it's really happening, I just want to knock their heads together and demand their attention long enough to ask what they think we as a species can do about any climate change, whether it's completely natural or not.

Because realistically, even if it were proven conclusively that human activity has contributed to global warming, you simply couldn't stop those practices that are blamed. All around the globe people want to live a lifestyle that is supported by those very activities that are blamed for global warming (emissions from autos, industry, cattle, etc.). They aren't going to forgo a better lifestyle across Asia and Africa just because you don't like how hot it is. While it is not moot to discuss the validity of AGW theories, or how it could be mitigated through new technology, I think it would be more productive for those who worry about climate change to address how the world could respond to changes that could not be directly stopped or mitigated through any amount of lifestyle sacrifice.

So... forget about AGW. If the oceans were to rise a meter for natural reasons, how would people respond? If ocean currents and wind patterns changed to bring lasting drought to Western Europe, what would Europeans do about it? If glaciers covered the NFC North as they did just 20,000 years ago, would we just surrender that territory without a fight? What kind of a fight would be feasible or even possible?

100,000 years ago, humans would simply have moved their homes away from the water, drought, or glacier as necessary. I suspect we might not be so blasé about it in modern times. But we don't seem to put a lot of thought into the reality that these catastrophic extremes are possible and even likely to occur in cycles in the coming millennia. Maybe that's too far away for you to care about, but stories like this one get me thinking about it quite a bit. Are we willing to be an essentially nomadic species in the long term, just so long as things seem constant within our lifetime? Aren't we too obsessed with history and archeology to just meekly accept that certain areas are habitable now but won't be forever?