3 ms·

Again you are making the same mistake as most other here. You are speculating not actually demonstrating this to be true. You have no base for the claim that t

Again you are making the same mistake as most other here. You are speculating not actually demonstrating this to be true. You have no base for the claim that there are going to be more problems just like you have no base for knowing if we are going to be better to deal with those that come. We have more crops than ever and we are better at making sure they survive than ever in ever more hostile environments. You are only looking at one side of this discussion and forgetting the other.

dwaltrip 8y ago
It's not wild speculation. The current best scientific models predict a future climate that will likely cause many of these increased problems.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Models aren't scientific in any useful sense of that word. They are software models based on math and only indirectly on science. This is why the model don't come up with one outcome but with a lot of different scenarios. If it was purely science all the way there were no need to do different models, "the science" would dictate it. So you are misrepresenting how this works. So yes the conclusions are based on a lot of speculation. The problem is that people like you try to claim that these specific scenarios which are only one of many potential outcomes is somehow science. It's not. Not even by a longshot.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
graeme 8y ago
It doesn't take a fancy model to observe "the glacier is disappearing. When it is gone there will be no summer melt water" Yes, there are ways to adapt. But previously the glacier provided a free service and now we must soend energy to replace it. It likewise doesn't take a soeculative model to observe "hmm, more plants die in heat waves. If it keeps getting warmer more crops will die" Certainly we can motigste, but again we pay more energy for the same result. It likewise needs no speculative model to note that storm surges now send water seeping up through the streets of Miami, and that if oceans keep rising, this will worsen. You seem to be saying that we can't know anything about the future, and if anything bad happens we will surely adapt. Your optimism is admirable but you would make a lousy general.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Again you are trying to position this as something new. Humans have dealt with this before. There are plenty of links in this thread here showing how it's been even warmer before yet life went on. So again it still comes back to the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else have even remotely demonstrated that we should be as worried about the future as many would like us to be. I am not saying we can't know anything I am saying we don't know what exactly it is we should worry about and whether we should worry and we don't know what the consequences of prematurely doing things like making fossil fuel illegal or focusing on an inferior technology like solar and wind long before they can provide enough energy and replace the current energy sources reliably is the wrong way to go about it EXACTLY BECAUSE there is nothing that suggest that the consequences whatever they are will be cataclysmic which means it's not actually an argument for forgetting about the peoeple who exist today and who also want live better lives, also want to live like we do in the west. You and others seem to assume that hindering climate change is without consequences for people living today. I have yet to see a suggestion that isn't fundamentally about stopping what we are doing to some extent.

dwaltrip 8y ago

It's not wild speculation. The current best scientific models predict a future climate that will likely cause many of these increased problems.

ThomPete 8y ago
Models aren't scientific in any useful sense of that word. They are software models based on math and only indirectly on science. This is why the model don't come up with one outcome but with a lot of different scenarios. If it was purely science all the way there were no need to do different models, "the science" would dictate it. So you are misrepresenting how this works. So yes the conclusions are based on a lot of speculation. The problem is that people like you try to claim that these specific scenarios which are only one of many potential outcomes is somehow science. It's not. Not even by a longshot.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

graeme 8y ago

It doesn't take a fancy model to observe "the glacier is disappearing. When it is gone there will be no summer melt water" Yes, there are ways to adapt. But previously the glacier provided a free service and now we must soend energy to replace it. It likewise doesn't take a soeculative model to observe "hmm, more plants die in heat waves. If it keeps getting warmer more crops will die" Certainly we can motigste, but again we pay more energy for the same result. It likewise needs no speculative model to note that storm surges now send water seeping up through the streets of Miami, and that if oceans keep rising, this will worsen. You seem to be saying that we can't know anything about the future, and if anything bad happens we will surely adapt. Your optimism is admirable but you would make a lousy general.

ThomPete 8y ago
Again you are trying to position this as something new. Humans have dealt with this before. There are plenty of links in this thread here showing how it's been even warmer before yet life went on. So again it still comes back to the simple fact that neither you nor anyone else have even remotely demonstrated that we should be as worried about the future as many would like us to be. I am not saying we can't know anything I am saying we don't know what exactly it is we should worry about and whether we should worry and we don't know what the consequences of prematurely doing things like making fossil fuel illegal or focusing on an inferior technology like solar and wind long before they can provide enough energy and replace the current energy sources reliably is the wrong way to go about it EXACTLY BECAUSE there is nothing that suggest that the consequences whatever they are will be cataclysmic which means it's not actually an argument for forgetting about the peoeple who exist today and who also want live better lives, also want to live like we do in the west. You and others seem to assume that hindering climate change is without consequences for people living today. I have yet to see a suggestion that isn't fundamentally about stopping what we are doing to some extent.