That is the question that the Climate Change'rs will never answer. The Earth's climate is changing . . . just like it has done since the Earth had a climate. There is NO standard climate and never has been. It is in a constant state of change.
The answer to that question is simple: what is the optimal climate?
The one which supports human life on this planet. There is an acceptable range of climate variance in which we can continue to grow crops, to live in most regions of the planet, to support a population of 7-10B people.
The concern is that we drift outside that range, what are the implications?
The earth doesn't give af. It's undergone
5 mass extinctions in history, and it's still here. So the question isn't what is the earth's optimal climate--it's what climate allows US as humans to thrive.
The question at hand is are mankind's actions having an adverse affect on the climate? Some would argue that it is and some would argue they are not.
I think it's clear that climate is warming, and it's clear that a portion of that warming is due to CO2. That is undisputed.
The question is whether a warmer climate is adverse to
our future?
Personally, I do believe that man's actions have an affect on the climate, however that affect is so minuscule when compared to something like a large volcanic eruption.
True, but our burning of fossil fuels is equivalent to huge "natural" climate events happening every day, every month, every year, and always in the direction of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Your point--that there are huge natural events that can swing climate--is valid. But most of those events are transitory or cyclical, not continuous.
Now that is not to say that we should just do whatever we want and continue to pollute the oceans and the air. We as humans need to be responsible for our environment. We should do what we can to reduce or eliminate pollution as best we can. But we also should NOT bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Man's use of fossil fuels over the past 120+ years has done more to extend lives and feed people than the entire history of mankind prior to that. Telling people that we no longer need those things is foolish and short sighted.
Agreed, and that IMHO is one of the blinds spots of the climate change alarmists. I think that many of them know NOTHING about economics. They assume that we can just stop producing CO2 and it won't have any negative effects, or that we can magically/economically transition to renewables by fiat.
It's why Cincy frames his argument the way he has done so--we're running this experiment through. Economically, the many third world nations trying to climb out of poverty--which are relying on cheap fossil fuel energy--will NOT simply give up their future economic success unless there's a breakthrough that makes renewables economically feasible to power their growth. That day may come, but it's not yet here.
Another question I would ask of those that are pushing Climate Change is, knowing that the spot in which I am currently sitting was covered by a mile thick sheet of ice some 10,000 years ago, what made that ice disappear? Was it cave men driving SUV's? Too many Woolly Mammoth farts?
I don't know. The world of 10,000 years ago wouldn't support 7B humans in an industrial society, so maybe we should try to avoid swinging the climate too far from a climate that we know actually WILL support 7B humans in an industrial society.
Let's face it. The Earth's climate is in a constant state of change as it has always been. That big orange, sometimes visible orb in the sky dictates our climate more than mankind ever could, even if they tried.
I think you're discounting the level of havoc that mankind could wreak. CO2 may be the least of our problems. We have enough nukes across the world that we could make Earth uninhabitable for humans in less than a day, and more and more nations trying to get them.
Which--if climate change really DOES cause adverse affects to our climate, may be more likely. What happens if we swing the pendulum far enough that we affect climate to the point where we can only grow enough crops for ~1B people? How much war, how much destruction, how much terror will occur to try to be one of those 1B rather than one of the other 6B?
