We’ve had the ten worst climate research papers, the ten worst blog posts, and now Cohenite has decided on ten of the worst man-made disasters. I can’t say I agree with all his choices for the list, but we are all entitled to our own opinions. So, here goes from Cohenite, with a preamble about global warming and western society:
The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm is that interference with nature will inevitably produce disastrous results.
Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg is castigated for even suggesting there has been progress in humanity’s living conditions and the destruction of nature to achieve this, on balance has been worthwhile.
AGW does not contemplate any benefit from any compromise or destruction of nature. We are continually informed by AGW advocates that progress using carbon energy sources will lead to “tipping points”, “dangerous heating”, “dangerous climate change” and “irreversible damage to the Earth” through “runaway greenhouse”.
But AGW remains unverified. As climatologists Demitris Koutsoyiannis, David H. Douglass and John R. Christy have shown the general circulation models (GCM’s) have failed. As well, the atmospheric model of AGW has been refuted by climatologists Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Roy Spencer and William D. Braswell.
Given these failures, AGW maintains traction in three ways:
1. It includes within its brand real environmental problems which have nothing to do with AGW; as such AGW has become a catch-all phrase for every environmental concern, real or imagined.
2. It relies heavily on the precautionary principle, the “what-if” threat which appeals to base fears and guilt.
3. AGW sources its cause in western society, with its materialism, waste and use of unsustainable energy forms as the preferred agents. In this respect AGW is anchored by a critique of western society with that critique mired in green aesthetics and values (see James Lovelock, Clive Hamilton, Maurice Strong, Charles Birch and James Gustave “Gus” Speth).
AGW sceptics acknowledge that man’s progress can cause environmental damage. But most sceptics recognize there are two standards for measuring this damage. The first is that which is adopted by green values and AGW; this is damage to a pristine natural template (PN) and disruption of an environmental equilibrium. Extreme exponents of this criterion not only critique western lifestyle but the validity of human existence. The second method of measuring this damage is in terms of the welfare of humanity. The criterion for this is what benefits humanity rather than what preserves PN. From this perspective, with population increasing and despite tremendous technological advance (which has kept Thomas Malthus and Paul Ehrlich at bay) sustainability, or a steady state, non-interference with PN, cannot be achieved without an erosion of living standards.
Former Newcastle and now Murdoch University academic and pro-AGW supporter, Glenn Albrecht, said that the only human society remotely sustainable was ancient aboriginal custom. Mega fauna aside, the point is, human progress has been at the expense of PN, and sustainability and PN are 2 sides of the one coin.
There is an ideological lacuna between the two criteria, which this blog post is not concerned with. The purpose of this post is to present ten environmental disasters caused by man which have nothing to do with either AGW or western society. These disasters demonstrate that AGW is a distraction from a proper analysis of those incidents where man disrupts PN. It is only on the basis of an evaluation of real environmental issues such as these 10 that proper decisions and choices about future human intrusion into PN can be made.
1. Communism in the USSR – Chernobyl and Aral Sea etcetera
This was the cause of the greatest and most sustained anthropogenic disruption of PN. As professor Mnatsakanian explains, “Clean air, water, and a pristine environment were considered free goods without value. So polluting them was acceptable”. Certain kings of capitalism were prone to similar sentiments. Lang Hancock’s infamous statement that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs comes to mind. But for collective, ideological indifference to PN, corruption of science (Lysenko), sheer human suffering and culmination in the iconic anthropogenic ecological catastrophe, Chernobyl, USSR communism takes the ‘cake’. A visit to the Aral Sea anyone?
Disruption of PN 7, Progress, 0
2. East Germany – Coal Furnaces etcetera
If USSR communism has been humanity’s worst disruption of PN, than East Germany was its pin-up boy. The brown lignite coal furnaces are still going (accounting for 11.6% of all energy in 2007, sustainables were 6.7% with biomass three quarters of that) and East Germany was responsible for the green apocalypse story of the 1960’s-1980’s, acid rain. This is indeed a heavy price for some gold medals.
Disruption of PN 6, Progress 0
3. Communist China – Air pollution etcetera
The biggest Asian Tiger of them all. Some would say its ecological problems are due to its capitalist tendencies but they would be wrong. China’s accountability is as opaque as USSR communism. 750,000 Chinese die each year due to air pollution demonstrating the stark distinction between real air pollution and CO2 “pollution”.
Disruption of PN 5, Progress, 3
4. The Iraqi Marshes – Drained
After his defeat in Kuwait, Saddam evened a few scores by draining the 9,000 sq km’s of the Southern Marshes, reducing them to 760 sq km. The destruction of such a large body of water had devastating consequences for PN. Since Saddam’s overthrow the marshes have rejuvenated. There is little man can do to PN which is irreversible.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 0
5. The Kuwaiti Oil Wells – Burned etcetera
Before draining the Southern Marshes Saddam set fire to over 700 Kuwaiti oil fields while simultaneously dumping 10 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. This exceeded the Exxon Valdez spill 20 fold. The consumption of oil by the flames was over one billion barrels for the first seven months. The fields were not extinguished for three years. Probably three billion barrels went up in smoke; about 10% of what the world uses in a year. According to AGW temperature is going up about 0.3C PD or 0.03C per year. Saddam by himself increased the temperature by 0.003C.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 0
6. Indonesian land-clearing
The Australian Conservation Foundation says the emissions from Indonesian land-clearing are five times Australia’s total emissions. This clearing is occurring because of transmigration and/or for palm oil production destined for biodiesel, and/or timber mainly for Asia pulp and paper, and/or subsistence farming. The main problem is the method of clearing by burning, which makes Indonesia the world’s third highest carbon emitter.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 2
7. Amazonian land-clearing
The Amazon is 5.7 million sq km, 75% of the Australian land area. Since 1970, 1/6 of the Amazon has been cleared, mainly for beef, and increasingly for ethanol. Clearing a rainforest to grow ethanol creates a carbon debt 17-420 times the carbon benefit of that ethanol replacing fossil fuels. Ethanol grown on already cleared land has little or no carbon debt. The green dilemma: to clear or not to clear.
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 2
8. DDT
DDT is an iconic example of the clash between the ‘PN and human progress by keeping nature at bay’ dichotomy. It also demonstrates the “Sword of Damocles” aspect of every application of human technology. There are still unresolved questions including: Was DDT losing its efficacy and creating resistant bugs when it was banned; or did banning/reducing DDT use cause more deaths?
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 3.
9. New Guinea
New Guinea is the quintessential PN, second only to the Amazon in extent and variation. A 2009 study will determine whether its glaciers are retreating. Many of its peoples live according to Albrecht’s maxim of sustainability. OkTedt showed how Progress through development of New Guinea’s vast mineral wealth should not be done. Will the Lihir Island resource be a reasonable compromise between PN disruption and Progress?
Disruption of PN 4, Progress 3
10. Bhopal
Bhopal caused over 4000 deaths and half a million casualties due to severe air pollution by MIC gas. India was keen to have western technology. Union Carbide compromised standards to an extent it couldn’t do at its equivalent plant in West Virginia. The Indian and regional Madhya Pradesh governments were complicit in this. There have been no more Bhopal’s. Can we learn by Bhopal and have progress without such disasters?
Disruption of PN 3, Progress 4
The question remains, regardless of whether AGW is a false threat, is any disruption of PN acceptable if the prevailing value is that PN should be preserved, and only a minimalist lifestyle be tolerated?
Cohenite lives in Newcastle, Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Blocking nuclear power has to be a big one against sustainability. But its very hard to track where the specific damage is done. The global warming fraud has to be big also in this indirect sense. It distracts us from any real problems that are out there. Our success seems to be wrapped up in what we DON’T worry about. Fraudulent concerns chase out the authentic ones in a giant version of Greshams law.
I try to tell people of the need to take taxes off aquaculture. Because overfishing is a big problem. I try to get them interested in allowing the ability of people to be able to homestead small areas of intensely farmed ocean territory. Even if it is mostly subsurface and not an obstruction to the movement of speedboats, yachts and ships. I tell them that we ought to become the lowest cost producer of farmed sea products.
But that gets a big yawn. Everyone starts getting advanced anemia and insulin shock even thinking about it. And its because they have been bombarded by this CO2-bedwetting fakery. So they don’t know a real problem when they see it. People are supposing that they can just allow this fraud to go on and that it does no harm and even may do some marginal good. But this is not right. It will cause immense damage and its a liability that we cannot afford.
India might well be a democracy but it remains a socialist state in which corruption is the norm. Bhopal is simply one symptom of this method of social organization, but it is telling that socialism, in all its variations, seems to be synonymous with environmental vandalism – how could it otherwise be when no one owns anything?
All boutique denialist fodder …
More like the 10 biggest nose picks from Cohers who conveniently misses out the big one, when the whole of humanity went close to the brink in drought.
http://wcco.com/watercooler/human.DNA.study.2.707582.html
A million dead in the Sahel drought undoubtedly aided by anthropogenic CO2 polluters. NOT TO MENTION MANY OTHER DROUGHTS !!
And a whole civilization – the Mayan Empire destroyed by climate (last time it was warm).
Uncouth luke; but I rather think your link proves my point; a massive near extinction of humanity 90,000 bya with humanity then living per Albrecht’s sustainable criteria shows how fragile humanity is when we are totally dependent on natural vissicitudes. I’ve said it before and it bears repeating, real environmental issues are going to be neglected while AGW sucks in resources and AGW measures are not in the best interests of humanity. The point is, often the interests of humanity and PN diverge and that is not acceptable to some groups who seem to prefer or value PN more than humanity. Now, say something meaningful about population parameters.
Maya civilization (the idea of “Empire” is wrong, it was more like Classical Greece with many competing polities) collapsed for a number of reasons — understandable because it extended over a number of environmental zones (the flat Yucatan plain, and mountainous regions in Mexico and points south.) The Yucatan’s cities may have collapsed from natural droughts, but Copan in Honduras collapsed as a state because of poor soil management — the Mayan elite built its houses and temples on the best agricultural land in the vallley, forcing farmers continually up the eroding hillsides. Teotihuacan in the valley of Mexico probably collapsed when increased temeraatures around 700 AD caused a high pressure zone over the valley keeping out rains from the north (the valley was not realy re-occupied until after temperatures declined in the 14th century and the central mexican lakes could grow again.
Cohenite,
Well done! As much as PN is in our bones and we long for the magnificence of it, anyone with any imagination understands that in our present world we can only survive if we look after the people first.
We may be in plague proportions but we are still part of it [and who’s going to mow the grass if we all depart?]
Luke,
That’s probably the only thing that got you out of Africa.
If we get used to nuclear power, hard money, nature corridors, user financed infrastructure, and the idea that any restrictions to vertical development are an anti-social act, then the potential is to have a more robust nature than anything seen since before we came out of Africa. And perhaps more robust even then that.
Extra CO2 is obviously part of the process of healing nature. If indeed we are responsible for substantial enough extra CO2.
Well Cohenite that comment belies the sheer stupidity of the denialist position – that somehow a burgeoning human population has ever been at peace with climate extremes.
Of course we can make that much worse in a very short period. Give it a nudge.
Food security and water supplies are inherently linked with climate variation.
As usual Cohers – a selective and disingenuous review.
What I meant luke, is what is the best population control mechanism; natural attrition or human process? Currently, apart from war, we see 2 human processes controlling population; the first is in China and can be best termed social oppression; it works piece-meal with one umplanned result being a gross gender distortion; the other controlling factor under human control is prosperity; the old psychological truism that behaviour is better directed by positive reinforcment rather than negative; and prosperity only comes from keeping PN at bay. On the other side of the slate natural population controls are a tad harsh.
Thanks SD, and a merry xmas to you!
Luke
I guess you would know about stupidity. AGW is a problem according to your religion because it causes extreme weather events. So when in the past weren’t there extreme weather events? Tell us what is the optimal temperature that is being aimed at. If you have a target temperature please explain how that is going achieve your creeds desired outcome. My guess is you do not have a clue and are not able to answer.
Thanks for offering the wildly speculative argument that there have been droughts not caused by AGW.
luke,
“A million dead in the Sahel drought undoubtedly aided by anthropogenic CO2 polluters. NOT TO MENTION MANY OTHER DROUGHTS !!
—————————————
And a whole civilization – the Mayan Empire destroyed by climate (last time it was warm).”
—————————————
CO2 anthropogenic CO2 no doubt!
I can only repeat Cpt. Mannering ,
“Now you are in the realm of phantasy!”
Incidentaly, just because drought relief was called something else before, doesn’t mean it did not exist!
Look everyone why bother trying to argue with Luke and the other fools who infest this blog, just remember they’ve GOT RELIGION via the fundamentalist route and are beyond help.
You could argue forever in good faith and no concessions will be made, even if you prove an obvious point you’ll still be vilified and their big guns of unreason and blind faith will be wheeled in to support their pig ignorance.
Just ignore these stupid leftwing nutters and work out how to warn the populace about the ETS and its consequences, that’s a huge task in itself.
The budget surplus is just about gone so in the future ( post 2010 ) we could be using up scarce funds just to incorporate and maintain this useless ETS, plus penalizing business and putting thousands of jobs at risk for zero return on our money.
Just think of the influence Aust will have on climate ( if you believe AGW ) when we cut back our 1% of emissions, about four fifths of five eighths of sweet f. all.
But then think of the effect on our economy and jobs when we pursue this madness.
Luke, you had better come back early.
This dill you have standing in for you, while your on holidays, is just not cutting it mate.
Come back now, or your reputation will be ruined.
Lets not be too harsh. I was thinking of dumping this link here off topic without the opening Luke provided.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
via Heliogenic climate change.
Instead of desertification in the Sahel, due to the increased co2 content of the atmosphere, the lower Sahara is experiencing an increase in primary production of plantlife. The desert is blooming. Been doing it for about 20 years. The growth is independant of rainfall totals.
The Africans owe us a thanks.
Im wondering if your Aussie version of the Sahel is blooming up in step with the rising co2? You all have plenty of land bordering on deserts, right?
Thanks for making my dribbles timely and topical Luke.
Obama is appointing his own population bomb specialist as a science advisor
se Lubos site here
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/crackpot-john-holdren-will-become.html
Cohenite, A beacon of reason and moderation as usual. Bravo!
Luke, you have nothing. Your shtick is looking increasingly desperate. Are you serious? You’re quoting a dry spell from the past (ie, the time when the weather was pre-GW pristine) as a GW catastrophe. Do you see how ludicrous this is? The Cohenster must have rattled your usual ‘Team GW talking points’ composure. Let me remind you of the message: The past does not conform; the theory only works for the computer-modeled future. Now, take a deep breath and get back to scaring the children. Or…
Come across, in the spirit of yuletide. We won’t tell anyone what you were like before you saw the light.
Beano; Interesting comment following Lubo’s spray on Holden, who sounds like an archetypal AGW egotist and meglomaniac; the comment is about Robert Bussard, a recently deceased physicist specialising in fusion; he developed the concept of the Bussard ramscoop starship; the ramscoop, which travelled in front of the starship, consisted of a vast electromagnetic field projected from superconducting coils which ionised the hydrogen atoms that exist even in the ‘vacuum’ of space; since the collecting magnetic field is 250,000 km wide the scarcity of the hydrogen is overcome. Unfortunately this idea, which has been a S-F staple for yonks, is flawed because the the coils would have to be so large they would tear themselves apart; not to mention that the fusion motors would require deuterium, a rare form of hydrogen; the upshot is that most of the hydrogen collected would be useless and would pile up in front of the craft and actually cause it to slow. The analogy with AGW and what it is going to do to humanity is plain.
Religion – you neo-Nazis have surpassed religion.
(it’s the rate you make political references say you guys have got it baaaad!)
BTW did I say the mooted ETS is a good idea?
In your myopic moronic world view you’ve never moved past the science ETS link. Simplistic child-like thinking from right-wing goons.
Jimmock – your summary is utter horseshit – you’re not even on the page mate.
So much for the “spirit of yuletide”; never mind Jimmock, you tried. Answer this, if you will luke; which is more important, the preservation of PN or the best interests of humanity; put another way, are there any circumstances in which you would tolerate compromise of PN for a manifest benefit to humanity?
Luke
Now that you have lost any semblance of rationality and you are behaving as a unreasoning yobo it is time to do some actual thinking. Look I want to know what the ideal world temperature range is. How low does it have to go before we only get weather we like. I would also like the optimal figure as well which establishes the required balance?
Cohers – let’s go with the best interests of humanity. But of course your PN notion sucks. I always smile how you guys assume the existing climate is benign and that we are well adapted to it.about
DHMO – ideal range – don’t know – what our best science says is that extremes of the system increase the more we keep bumping the radiation balance from here. Temperature is least of the worries. All this on an increasingly crowded planet. Who gets the rainfall and who doesn’t is the major issue.
But anyway – you soon won’t know. The decision is to can all climate research and not have a climate policy.
On the other hand – – ??
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/20/relatively-unknown-maryland-scientist-wants-to-patent-the-swamp-cooler-to-combat-global-warming/#more-4626
“Relatively unknown Maryland scientist” wants to patent the swamp cooler
Luke (00:26:17) :
I have more fear of these yahoos doing more harm to the planet trying to fix the non-existent problem.
Save the planet!
DHMO has implied one of my favourite questions – long unanswered – so I would like to ask it again: Just what is a Ruddiant climate? If we are going to impose an anthropogenic CO2 constraint upon the economy how are we going to recognize success and know a Ruddiant climate when we have it? Given that the health of the Earth’s biomass is directly dependant upon CO2, precisely what biomass would a Ruddiant climate deem optimal for life on Earth?
Luke, you have nothing. Your shtick is looking increasingly desperate. Are you serious? You’re quoting a dry spell from the past (ie, the time when the weather was pre-GW pristine) as a GW catastrophe. Do you see how ludicrous this is? The Cohenster must have rattled your usual ‘Team GW talking points’ composure. Let me remind you of the message: The past does not conform; the theory only works for the computer-modeled future. Now, take a deep breath and get back to scaring the children. Or…
you don t even know the difference between GW and AGW.
in short, the example that Luke gave, was a good one.
“adaption” often is simply a different word for many people/animals dying.
The swamp cooler is good but I think the best AGW ‘solution’ is still the one proposed by our Tim;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724410-29277,00.html
cohenite from the link
and
this prompts my solution for our Tim
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/mha2007128/sch2.html
Luke if it is not know what the optimal temperature is then the is no point. It means any effort regarding AGW is pointless.
Following on from Sod addressing Jimmocks’ comments about the impacts of GW and AGW.
There might be many pathways to heaven or hell….
The simple points I was making is that the last time there was a significant warming there were major changes in circulation patterns bringing drought to the Americas and Asia. Whether it was GW or AGW doesn’t matter that much. (See Brian Faden’s book – The Great Warming –
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Warming-Climate-Change-Civilizations/dp/1596913924
a summary being …… “Global warming is hardly new; in fact, the very long-term trend began about 12,000 years ago with the end of the Ice Age. Anthropologist Fagan (The Little Ice Age) focuses on the medieval warming period (ca. 800-1300), which helped Europe produce larger harvests; the surpluses helped fund the great cathedrals. But in many other parts of the world, says Fagan, changing water and air currents led to drought and malnutrition, for instance among the Native Americans of Northern California, whose key acorn harvests largely failed. Long-term drought contributed to the collapse of the Mayan civilization, and fluctuations in temperature contributed to, and inhibited, Mongol incursions into Europe. Fagan reveals how new research methods like ice borings, satellite observations and computer modeling have sharpened our understanding of meteorological trends in prehistorical times and preliterate cultures. Finally, he notes how times of intense, sustained global warming can have particularly dire consequences; for example, by 2025, an estimated 2.8 billion of us will live in areas with increasingly scarce water resources. Looking backward, Fagan presents a well-documented warning to those who choose to look forward. ”
And again humanity is poorly ADAPTED to cope.
Humanity’s close shave when our populations were small is another example.
So small changes in global temperature can cause major reorganisations in climate patterns with perhaps winners and losers. Warming or cooling might have a number of mechanisms or indeed combinations. A crowded planet now implies many many losers.
This shoddy attempt to by Cohers to invent the term “pre-AGW pristine” is just another denialist ruse to pigeon-hole the debate.
Even at a small scale there is no “constant” climate. Most of the eastern Australian summer cropping zone would work on something like this – 4 years out of 10 break even, 3 years out of 10 make a loss, 3 years out of 10 make a profit. Nudge this to 4 or 5 years make a loss and that’s a major change. Variation still occurs but odds are much worse.
For a mob that rants on continually about climate always changing you have not learnt anything from history at all.
Your ignorance of climate variability is obvious. Less alone regime shifts, time scale, or probability.
So in reality we don’t adapt that well to drought. We just cop it.
And so given these impacts the most enlightened view of the blog is that we don’t need a climate policy nor any climate research.
Outstanding analysis gentlemen. Outstanding.
OOPS
Luke if it is not know what the optimal temperature is then there is no point. It means any effort regarding AGW is pointless. Why bother measuring global temperature if we don’t know if we are going away or towards the ideal?
DDT is an example of right-wing wacko propaganda hoaxes gone so bad even the right wing can’t tell it’s a hoax anymore.
The reason DDT spraying was largely (not completely) abandoned by WHO in the mid-1960s was because it had ceased to be effective. The massive amounts of spraying necessary to wipe out malaria were increased, and they may not have been achievable before.
Unresolved questions do not include the two you mention. There is no doubt that mosquitoes developed resistance and even immunity to DDT — we can track the genes that do it. The DNA evidence is conclusive.
Malaria deaths increased because the malaria parasites became resistant the pharmaceuticals used to kill them in humans. Unless you’re urging that humans should drink massive amounts of DDT to see if it will cure malaria, there is no question that stopping the spraying of DDT on cotton in Texas did absolutely nothing to increase malaria in Africa, and frankly I wonder how you could ask such a silly question.
And if you did propose such a stupid solution, that humans drink DDT, you should be aware that DDT is listed as a probable human carcinogen.
Was this list assembled under the influence of intoxicants?
Well luke, I should feel agrieved that you are verballing me again but par for the course; it is not me who is ideologically devoted to a “pre-AGW pristine”; this is the essence of AGW; how could it be otherwise when its advocates deem man-made change as being bad, unless they had a vision or a designated ideal environment in mind which is being changed? One of the side issues of this is the notion that natural change is ok but human change, if it is occurring, is not. Just for the record I agree population is an issue but you have not responded to my comment about natural vs human population control measures; nor have you, or AGW supporters generally, come to grips with the fact that Sceptics do understand how fragile humanity is in the face of climate change; the only difference is Sceptics don’t want humanity to face CC with one hand tied behind its back in respect of energy sources; to paraphrase;
1 The case for AGW hasn’t been made.
2 The AGW discredited energy sources have been wrongly maligned
3 The alternative energy sources haven’t been proved to work
Thanks, however, for acknowledging that humanity should come first.
Ed; I’ve followed the Deltoid expose of DDT and Lambert’s feud with Beck; here are the 2 links; Lambert;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/10/roger_bates_false_history.php#more
Beck;
http://rwdb.blogspot.com/2008/05/john-quiggins-favourite-unreliable.html
This seems to provide a good, well-sourced summary of the issues;
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm#ref4
Your tone marks you as a Deltoid regular so forgive me if I turn the other cheek and request some sources for your declarations.
Luke, you said:
“So in reality we don’t adapt that well to drought. We just cop it.”
I’m not all together sure of what “cop” means in American, but if it is close to bail (as in bail out), then that is adaptation. We, as a species, have done this forever.
Our hunter/gatherer genes still prevail when they are reinforced by reality. And, from some of your comments you seem to think this is a bad trait?
Jan; harsh but fair; and may I take this opportunity to wish you, Louis, Gordon and all the other guys who chip in, a merry xmas.
CoRev – I did not mean “cop it sweet”. I meant be affected significantly and negatively. In the western world nobody dies thanks to communications, transport and aid. But crops still don’t grow in dust or with empty dams. Escaping in space to another side of the country or the world even is a corporate agriculture response to avoid drought. Or diversification.
We may have been fighting climate forever but you’re having yourself on if you think in general the world adapts – in the third world large scale death has been a typical result of major drought.
I haven’t read this thread so forgive me if my post is inapproriate.
The amazing aspect of Chernobyl was that they screened off huge areas after the incident. No human was allowed access to this area except specialised scientists. What they found were pristine environmental outcomes, species they thought were extinct appearing and breeding. The area around Chernobyl is teaming with wild life.
janama; that dovetails with what happened at number 4, the draining of the Southern Marshes; the idea that man has any lasting, irreversible affect on nature is straight out of Ozymandias.
Luke, you said: “…in the third world large scale death has been a typical result of major drought.” And I respond with in the developed world death, sometimes large scale, has been the result of other weather events, tornadoes, hurricanes/typhoons, extraordinary cold/warm snaps. We will adapt by moving or build better buildings and or levees.
After CO2 is debunked, and I do believe we are just a couple of years from that happening, what do you think will be the next environmental issue. My personal vote is on earth quakes (EQ). I think we will be trying to move populace into smaller and less dense housing away from EQ zones. BTW, one of the most severe quakes in the US happened in Missouri, and caused damage all the way to the East Coast, nearly 1/2 the country effected.
That’s the bit that hasn’t sunk into your brain – you’re already poorly adapted to climatic extremes from short term events like hurricanes to long term events like drought. Essentially you get walloped. We really adapt very little. Western civilisation perhaps affected somewhat less. But you still get walloped.
Empty dams and dust don’t grow crops.
AGW or not ….
AGW is highly likely to make matters worse on an increasingly crowded planet.
BTW if you think you’re going to move all peoples from earthquake zones around the world into dysfunctional ghettos of despair – good luck to you? Might be like Israel and Palestine perhaps?
My lad, Luke, I believe you are starting to get the message. You said: “BTW if you think you’re going to move all peoples from earthquake zones around the world into dysfunctional ghettos of despair – good luck to you?”
And at the same time you propose that we control the weather by reducing minor amounts of CO2. Neither proposal makes any sense.
luke; you appear genuine, but you are afflicted with this pessimistic and denigrating view of humankind’s ability to deal with what nature throws at us; look at Holland, up to 7 meters below sea level; I should have done a post on the 10 best ways humanity has overcome nature; the AGW perspective is of the same disparaging type as the Malthusian, Ehrlichian and now Holdren philosophies; but AGW is slightly different; it not only says humanity cannot deal with natural and man-induced natural change but AGW also seems to want to handicap man’s ability to cope with that change; energy and technology is all we have got and AGW wants to deprive us of 99.9% of the available energy sources; I just don’t get it; it is almost as if, some, of the AGW supporters want humanity to fail.
Of course I’m bloody serious !
Cohers – just for Xmas imagine if AGW was substantially correct yet the policy response of limiting energy was equally unpalatable.
Just what a vengeful God (and I’m an atheist 🙂 ) would serve up as a marvellous dilemma for humanity.
Do you hear defending the ETS? I’m not sure – perhaps it’s brilliant – or is it totally stupid. A start – or the utter end !
CoRev – you can’t “control” the weather (well cloud seeders might give it a nudge at times) but you can likely change the odds. It’s about probability distributions not events.
It’s about changes in circulation systems more than temperature. Energy balances and how it plays out. How many years out of 10 you win, lose or break even.
Landholders have gone behind the shed and blown their brains out over losing their father’s and grandfather’s property to drought bankruptcy. It’s serious stuff. It eats like cancer. Take a turn on the rural counsellers desk some time.
For Australians it IS the defining climate issue.
There is no worthier a problem.
So a climate policy of substance is of some pith and moment. AGW or not. Hence my bolshiness.
Luke, when you say: “It’s about probability distributions not events.” is the basic problem with many AGWers. Because it is a study based upon stats, thinking like this creeps into the solution set. NO!!! IT IS NOT ABOUT PROBABILITY. It is about real world impacts that change weather events consistently in the short term to get a measurable impact over time and space. Where are your solutions that fit this need?
Sheesh! Keep working on it! You might get a clue that does not guarantee a negatively impacted civilization, instead of the might happen scenarios so prevalent in the alarmism.
For heavens sake CoRev – go and study some basic meteorology and mathematics. The real world has already generated a probability distribution for you – mean temperature, chance of a temperature > x in June, probability of rainfall less than y in September, upper tercile wind speeds etc etc etc
You denialists don’t even have the basics to conduct an elementary discussion. Golly me …. how tedious. If you think the real world doesn’t generate probabilities that you use every day then you are more stupid than I thought.
You really are not very savvy are you – as you don’t have to deal with climate in your nice day to day air-conditioned cossetted life. Change 3 years good, 3 years bad, three year break even and the economics of an entire cropping region may fail ….
Alarmism in in the recent paleo evidence – go and read Brian Faden’s book – The Great Warming for Xmas.
Luke, the key question in my last was: “It is about real world impacts that change weather events consistently in the short term to get a measurable impact over time and space. Where are your solutions that fit this need?” And you reply with ad homs and non-information.
My background is unimportant, but I will remind you that in previous private conversations I admitted to having worked on the Apollo missions. Y’ano,the science that did something real.
So, when you get over yourself answer the question posed above. You see that is what is important. Solutions that are meaningful and provide results.
But, for anyone else still listening, Merry Christmas, that goes to you and yours too Luke.
WW II
WW I
The Black Plague (a failure of sanitation)