"But the Lantern remains convinced that our species' carbon output is changing things for the worse down in the land of penguins."

I love statements like that. Is that a result from an online poll of penguins and seals? If warming up is making things worse, would cooling down make things better? Has the ideal weather pattern that makes everything "best" been identified by a UN agency so we, as responsible species, can push the planet toward it?

Your conclusions are only as good as your assumptions. Many environmentalists put forth solid logic, but work from a feeling that everything would be better if the planet was left as if humans were never here, or at least never came down from the trees. The validity of assumption relies heavily on the definition of "better", whether any reduction of human impact is an improvement, and what to make of active efforts at mitigation.

Well, there are many examples of human intervention and actions leading to environmental disaster, and not that many of unintended *good* consequences.

Yeah, ok, no one is saying there's an "ideal" temperature for the earth that we know and that we should always strive for, but how about just not rocking the boat too much?

That's kind of a good point. Our earliest identifiable ancestors appeared at a time when the overall global climate was a lot warmer and drier than it is now, and climates that have been good for some forms of life have proven detrimental to others.

The thing to remember is, this so-called "normative" climate is the one we're used to living in, and what most of our infrastructure is built for. If water sources move or dry up, if weather changes to make farming more difficult, if some areas flood and others turn to desert, that's almost certainly going to be a problem for at least some humans. Changes in the poles could alter weather patterns and sea currents thousands of miles away, making life difficult not only for penguins and polar bears, but for humans as well.

I don't think that we should be so arrogant as to say something like "screw the polar bears, they're just animals." But you make a point that environmentalist arguments designed to make us feel guilty for the fact that we exist (or came down out of the trees) are really not accomplishing anything. Focusing on how protecting the environment and natural resources can help human beings sustain healthy, comfortable lives and enjoy the psychological benefits of nature close at hand - which the monkey in us needs to feel at ease - is a much more effective way to look at environmental problems and find solutions.

Warmer globe ----> Higher sea levels

Higher sea levels -----> New coast line further inland

New coast line -----> No more New Orleans, New York, London, Bangladesh, etc.

That seems sort of bad to me. But, I suppose there will be some kind of upside as well.

Because if New Orleans would be located below sea level, it wouldn't exist as a city? Seriously?

And there are any number of possible benefits to global warming. Just to list a couple:

* Most deaths in the United States from natural causes occur in the cold winter months, according to a Stanford study I saw (which concluded that global warming is likely to reduce death from disease).

* To compensate for land on the coastline that will be covered by water, vast tracts of North America, Europe, Asia will become part of the temperate climate zone, making them economically useful. Maybe not for polar bears, but for people. In 50 years, Siberia could be feeding a billion people with its farmland.

I'm not arguing that on the net global warming is the best thing since sliced bread. I simply don't like ill-considered statements like one I pointed to in the Slate article. If you want to use terms like "better" or "worse", point to a cost-benefit analysis that defines the best temperature for each point on the globe. Consider whether you would feel the same if global warming turns out to be a natural phenomenon, and human activity is slowing it down. Otherwise, admit that you're just going with a gut feeling that what's "better" is for humans is to have no human impact on environmental patterns, for better or for worse.

"Consider whether you would feel the same if global warming turns out to be a natural phenomenon, and human activity is slowing it down."

But there's no evidence for that, and plenty for the other way around?

As far as "whether I would feel the same", of course not. I wouldn't WANT drastic changes and the inevitable problems just because it's "natural". I don't think I would encourage CO2 free-for-all to avoid it, though.

But that's not the situation we're facing. We're creating the drastic changes, according to all the best evidence. The environmental "default" - no huge amounts of CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere - seems like a reasonable thing to aim for.

It's kind of absurd to do a cost-benefit analysis of an uncertain change in climate on the entire planet. Way too many variables. But I still think it's a safe assumption that change is bad, for reasons others have stated. We built our societies according to the weather systems we have. If they had been different, it may be better or worse, but if they change, the transition is going to be a bear. It's not at all just a gut feeling, but knowledge that with any economic change, there is usually a transition cost, and with something as fundamental as climate, that cost would be high.

Although, if we did want to do a cost-benefit for just the continent of Antarctica warming, I'm not sure it would be so bad. The penguins who have adapted to a habitat over long time scales would definitely suffer, but they would probably survive, and I'm sure the few humans on the island wouldn't mind if it was a few degrees warmer.

Anyway, it's also an interesting question whether we'd feel the same if it was a natural shift occurring, rather than a man-made one. I know some people do see nature as a value unto itself. I personally don't. I respect the value of nature, but primarily because it is so valuable to us humans. If nature was screwing us over, and we had the power to change it, so be it. We can eradicate smallpox, build walls to prevent floods and nuke any asteroids that approach earth, and I have no problem with that at all.

pryoslice:

Because if New Orleans would be located below sea level, it wouldn't exist as a city? Seriously?

And there are any number of possible benefits to global warming. Just to list a couple:

* Most deaths in the United States from natural causes occur in the cold winter months, according to a Stanford study I saw (which concluded that global warming is likely to reduce death from disease).

* To compensate for land on the coastline that will be covered by water, vast tracts of North America, Europe, Asia will become part of the temperate climate zone, making them economically useful. Maybe not for polar bears, but for people. In 50 years, Siberia could be feeding a billion people with its farmland.

I'm not arguing that on the net global warming is the best thing since sliced bread. I simply don't like ill-considered statements like one I pointed to in the Slate article. If you want to use terms like "better" or "worse", point to a cost-benefit analysis that defines the best temperature for each point on the globe. Consider whether you would feel the same if global warming turns out to be a natural phenomenon, and human activity is slowing it down. Otherwise, admit that you're just going with a gut feeling that what's "better" is for humans is to have no human impact on environmental patterns, for better or for worse.

I don't dispute the possibilities you bring up. What are now cold, barren areas could indeed become breadbaskets. The problem is, many places that are now fertile and comfortable for humans would become much less so. The western United States, which is where we get a lot of our grain and corn and such from, would be affected this way. The water sources we use would dry up or move. Weather patterns would change, decreasing rainfall in some areas and increasing it in others.

We could certainly adjust and live in the new climate you describe, but in the interim, because our infrastructure and ways of life are so dependent upon the circumstances and resources of our planet's "normative" (to us) climate, it's going to be one hell of a mess. And who's to say when the climate will stop changing? The interim could be anywhere from a few decades to a century.

Many places would also lose much-valued birds and wildlife. Michigan, the state where I go to school, might lose its glorious display of fall colors due to climate change. That possibility is upsetting to a lot of Michigan residents. In other words, climate change would have psychological effects as well. It's always traumatic when familiar patterns are disrupted.

A different climate is not going to be "worse" in the great scheme of things, because I doubt that it will result in the extinction of the human species. To our descendants, it will just be the way the world is, although if the climate shift is indeed due to human activity, one hopes they will be a little wiser and more careful than we are. It's going to be "worse" for those of us who have to live through it, though.

This is one of the reasons why I have very little respect for those who are against finding ways to combat greenhouse gas emissions. They can't get their argument straight...

1) Global warming is not happening. The global climate is actually getting cooler. The whole thing is a (choose one):

• conspiracy of the global scientific community which is under the control of the commies/socialists/America Haters
• result of greedy, lazy scientists who don't know how or care to do real science and instead hop on idealogical bandwagons to keep their well-paid cushy science jobs as Global Warming Researchers and Yes-Men. Their livelihoods would cease to exist were global warming revealed to be a hoax, so they pretend it makes sense with lots of science-talk we can't understand.
  

2) Global warming is happening. But this is totally a result of natural climate cycles and has absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases from human activities.

3) Global warming is happening and is caused or at least greatly exacerbated by greenhouse gases from human activities. But this is actually a good thing, so we should not attempt to stop it. (What we're seeing here.)

4) Global warming is happening, and is caused or at least greatly exacerbated by greenhouse gases from human activities, and it's something we wish we could avoid. But it's impossible to do anything about it without destroying the world economy and handing the US to the commies/socialists, so we should just do nothing.

Every one of these arguments is mutually exclusive with the others.

Also:

"Because if New Orleans would be located below sea level, it wouldn't exist as a city? Seriously?"

Yes, it clearly did so well the last time the sea came to visit.

Every one of these arguments is mutually exclusive with the others.

Is it possible that you're just talking to 4 different people who have 4 different, arguably all of them defensible, positions?

It's going to be "worse" for those of us who have to live through it, though

The fact that change is difficult is important for those that have to go through it (us and our contemporaries). Accepting that the most dangerous part of a climate transition is the actual transition, not the end result, undercuts the arguments that "we're doing this to make earth livable for our children".

The question again is would the end result, after adjustment, be worse for us (including those aspects of the planet we truly care about) or not. How do you define worse or better? Is it just that different is worse, because there is a difficult transition involved? That seems to be the main counter-argument in this thread. And is the transition bad because we may be causing or would the same people try to prevent it if it turns out to be a natural climate phenomenon? In either case, the end result is the same in its impact on human life and natural diversity.

"Is it possible that you're just talking to 4 different people who have 4 different, arguably all of them defensible, positions?"

Not really, no. Defensible is a relative term, but basically if one of those arguments IS defensible, the others are both not really defensible and unnecessary.

Also, it isn't four people with four different arguments. It's an entire movement (and individual people) saying that global warming isn't happening, and even if it is, it's not our fault because it's actually the sunspots or something, and even if it is our fault, we can't do anything about it, and even if we could, we shouldn't.

I like your style, kaiso.

Here are the "rules" for denying climate change, as best as I can tell, based on long observation and experience in confronting deniers on other boards:

THE RULES:
1. Climate change isn't occurring.
2. The people who say it is occurring are only in it for the money.
3. If it really is occurring, it’s not our fault.
4. Anyway, there's nothing we can do about it.
5. If it is occurring, and it is our fault, and there is something we can do about it, doing so would wreck our economy.
6. In fact that’s the point of all this so-called climate science, it’s actually a liberal plot! Damn those omnipotent liberals!
7. Al Gore said he invented the internet; therefore climate change is not real. Q.E.D.
8. Hey, it’ll be a good thing! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
9. Besides, climate change isn't occurring, anyway.
10. Remember: it’s controversial!!!
Choose one or several. Repeat as necessary. As long as no positive action is taken, success has been achieved.

Hope you enjoy. It seems appropriate to me. Cheers!

dd