4 ms·

The fact that change in the abstract can be good or bad doesn't mean specific changes don't make things worse. But maybe more importantly, the rate of change m

The fact that change in the abstract can be good or bad doesn't mean specific changes don't make things worse. But maybe more importantly, the rate of change makes a huge difference. If change happens too rapidly, as human driven climate change seems to be, you don't have time to sufficiently adapt to take advantage of the new pros or offset the cons. Climate change will make a lot of places less habitable while making some places more so. Great, it balances out, right? Except most people live in the places that are habitable now, and if the habitable areas change overnight (in relative terms), billions of people are going to suddenly be living in the wrong places. Natural climate change over tens of thousands of years would give populations plenty of time to migrate, as has happened in the past. Human driven climate change over 100 years will not.

verisimi 4y ago
If, will, might, etc. But have you seen anything that resembles a rapid change? Putting aside the media alarmists, I have seen nothing that can't be explained as change. The beaches of my childhood are still there at the same height etc. Yes there have been fires (that I put down to forest mismanagement) and floods which will occur if you build on flood plains and if you cut down trees. So, I don't see rapid change. You should re watch al gore's original inconvenient truth film and see how well that has aged. He sounds like the proverbial boy who shouting fire in the cinema. Given his eco-investments, his actions are really better explained as a marketing exercise to will line his pockets.
- pjc50 4y ago
  It's not a rapid change. It's a slow change from about a century ago to projections about a century in the future. Another directly-observable-by-laymen example is the start of cherry blossom season: https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-into-color-sooner-than-they-have-in-1-200-years https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-i...

verisimi 4y ago

If, will, might, etc. But have you seen anything that resembles a rapid change? Putting aside the media alarmists, I have seen nothing that can't be explained as change. The beaches of my childhood are still there at the same height etc. Yes there have been fires (that I put down to forest mismanagement) and floods which will occur if you build on flood plains and if you cut down trees. So, I don't see rapid change. You should re watch al gore's original inconvenient truth film and see how well that has aged. He sounds like the proverbial boy who shouting fire in the cinema. Given his eco-investments, his actions are really better explained as a marketing exercise to will line his pockets.

pjc50 4y ago
It's not a rapid change. It's a slow change from about a century ago to projections about a century in the future. Another directly-observable-by-laymen example is the start of cherry blossom season: https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-into-color-sooner-than-they-have-in-1-200-years https://www.sciencealert.com/japan-s-cherry-blossoms-burst-i...