Thanks for your response, Ed. Hope I didn't push your buttons too hard to make you sit and type all that out.
What's funny is that I agree with you, but from the exact opposite perspective. I certainly agree that human existence is not a zero sum game.
But if you believe our climate scientists and their data when it correctly shows that yes, this planet has had far hotter and cooler times, and wildly varying precipitation and sea levels over its long history - then it shouldn't be that hard for you to also understand that it has never, NEVER changed as rapidly as it is doing right now. We have the data. Climate patterns are going off the rails, and it's simply logical to ask why. It's completely plausible that our human's incredible transformation of land use and atmospheric composition is affecting the climate.
Even so, my post acknowledged right up front that even if you don't agree with this fairly clear set of well correlating data, the other benefits of reducing fossil fuel use are obvious. Pollution sucks. Spewing carcinogens into the local air sucks. Fighting wars, ruining cities, killing thousands of people for control of energy sources, sucks. You didn't touch on this aspect. And so, even if you don't care about any of that! It's time to start thinking about how this clearly changing climate is going to affect humanity in the near future. A sea level rise of just a couple feet, coupled with what appears to be a trend of increasing storm intensity, will cause many millions of people to flee their cities and lands as climate refugees in the coming decades. Where will they go? What will they eat?
Finally when it comes to allowing lies to be told, maybe you should think critically about who is actually pulling the strings and providing you information on a daily basis. Big oil and other fossil fuel industries lobby our politicians more than any other industry - they control our politicians, and media. They sow disinformation. For example, Exxon knew their industry would cause climate change back in the 1970s, and they actively suppressed this information and then paid for a campaign of pseudo-science to create the very skepticism you now seem to harbor.
Great reply, thanks for the time it took. Let me answer a few points.
No buttons, I frustrate myself sometimes, it takes a lot of words, and I still fail to make my point way too often.
My beliefs on climate science in as few a words as possible.
We have became pretty good observers (although we find errors in that as well).
Climate models are more complex than most understand, we are still discovering meaningful elements of the planet like global ocean currents and other interesting things to this day. Models are sadly developed by using what we know, making a short term observation, then changing/adding variables to get the output in range of the results. Correlation does not equal cause and effect.
Now you are correct, without regard to the cause, we will have to deal with the impact of rising sea levels (which we have known about for recorded history). If it takes a week to rise to an impactful level we need to deal with it quicker than if it takes a year, but none the less the folks that built there should have had a clear indication it would need to be dealt with. Much like the poor folks in new orleans, maybe a simple sign that says "don't build a house below sea level" would help?
Neither the folks on the coast, or the people in new orleans will be helped by us cutting down on what you call conspicuous consumption. They have an issue of fighting nature, haul in dirt, grow gills, or move. I am not cold hearted, don't mean to trivialize the real suffering, but, at a logical level, these problems are not if, but when.
Life spans over time have largely increase to where I consider they hit the design limit. How long would you like to live? Would you live in a hut and eat only fresh caught fish and seaweed to live an additional year? I agree life is not a zero sum game, but, at an individual level it is full of trade offs. I am past the age where I could have out run the lion in primitive times, I get around ok and can participate in my hobbies, I would not change my lifestyle for another year or three.
Finally, I like my liars as transparent as possible. I would expect a BP exec to extol the virtues of fossil fuel, and how much better our lives are because of them.
What I can't easily tolerate is a politician with a tear in his eye saying we need to change our ways for the good of the children, when his real goals are: to get votes. Now to get votes he wants you to believe he cares, that doesn't sound too bad really, but, he also would like to put you in a position of dependence so you become a more reliable vote, and he doesn't have to work as hard for you. That is the greatest danger that this society faces. And while I understand the scientists that probably want to make the world a better place, I also know they are dependent on grant for relevance.
Humans fight, certainly not always for oil. As long as a man can pick up a stick, there will be war. Oil, lithium, freedom call the motives what ever you want.
Best,
ed
