For anyone who follows the issue of anthropogenic climate change, ie, Hotcoldwetdry because Someone Else refuses to allow government to force them to change their behavior as well as tax them into a much higher cost of living, you just knew that someone would link Brussels and climate change at some point. It was inevitable. The winner of Climate Derangement Syndrome is the NY Times’ Nicholas Kristoff, which features a tag line on the main opinion page listing “Brussels survived this week’s terror attacks, but it may not survive climate change.”
Terrorists, Bathtubs, and Snakes
(Kristoff starts out by noting that more Americans have died from falling in bathtubs, how America spends a ton on counter-terrorism, and how the human brain misjudges risk)
On the same day as the attacks, a paper by James E. Hansen and other climate experts was released arguing that carbon emissions are transforming our world far more quickly than expected, in ways that may inundate coastal cities and cause storms more horrendous than any in modern history. The response? A yawn.
Hansen is an eminent former NASA scientist, but he’s also an outlier in his timing forecasts, and I’m not qualified to judge whether he’s correct. Yet whatever the disagreement about the timeline, there is scientific consensus that emissions on our watch are transforming our globe for 10,000 years to come. As an important analysis in Nature Climate Change put it, “The next few decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and potentially catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the entire history of human civilization thus far.â€
To put it another way, this year’s election choices may shape coastlines 10,000 years from now. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have both mocked the idea of human-caused climate change, with Trump suggesting that it is a hoax invented by China to harm the American economy (he now says that last point was a joke).
The upshot is that Brussels survived this week’s terrorist attacks, but it may not survive climate change (much of the city is less than 100 feet above sea level).
The minimum height above sea level is around 43 feet. The average is 91 feet. Is Kristof seriously suggesting that the sea will rise this much within a few decades, as Hansen’s paper is about doom in a few decades? This is the worst kind of alarmism.
Oh, and not all survived this week’s terrorist attacks in Brussels. There were at least 34 killed, and the death toll my rise, not too mention all those who lost limbs. Rather uncaring of Nicholas, but, then, that’s leftism, prioritizing Things That Matter.
Doesn’t it seem prudent to invest in efforts to avert not only shoe bombers but also the drowning of the world’s low-lying countries?
Humanity should have stopped the great floodwater melt starting 20,000 years ago, which raised sea levels well over 400 feet over thousands of years. And actual sea level data suggests that the sea rise is exactly average for the Holocene, meaning it is much less than should be happening during this warm period, regardless of causation.
Unfortunately, our brains are not well adapted to most of the biggest threats we actually face in the 21st century. Warn us that climate change is destroying our planet, and only a small part of our prefrontal cortex (which worries about the future) will glimmer; then we’ll go back to worrying about snakes or their modern equivalent — terrorists.
Tiny increases in average global temperatures, regardless of causation, will not destroy the planet. It’s done fine at higher temperatures, such as during the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period. This opinion piece has devolved into true Cult of Climastrology derangement.
And this is a disgraceful piece, blowing off the deaths of fellow human beings as being inconsequential in light of Hotcoldwetdry.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Teach typed, for the umpteenth time:
Tiny? In fact, the mean global temperature has increased over 1 degree C over the past century with continued increase expected. To put this in context, it is now warmer than at anytime during the Holocene. The Earth was NOT warmer than now during the so-called Medieval and Roman Warm Periods.
Question: Will you support your claim that the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than now? If you can’t do that, would you please stop making the claim?
Is anyone claiming that global warming will destroy the planet? I didn’t think so. Experts are predicting that continued global warming will make life much more difficult for human societies. Droughts, famines, violent storms, coastal flooding, shifting crop cycles, lack of freshwater… all irrelevant to the Earth, but important to the humans who live here. As you point out, the Earth will not be destroyed but will survive.
Can you support this claim with actual evidence? If not, will you stop making the claim?
The NYT said:
And the great part about it is that here won’t be any of us still around to note how wrong the editors were.
Of course, this year’s election might very well have long-lasting consequences: are we going to elect someone who will actually defend our country, or some weakling who will continue to cave into the Islamists?
.
Will you support your claim that the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods were warmer than now?
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N50/EDIT.php
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/03/08/more-than-700-scientists-from-400-institutions-in-40-countries-have-contributed-peerreviewed-papers-providing-evidence-that-the-medieval-warm-period-was-real-global-warmer-than-the-present/
The problem is that instead of offering real solutions to what they perceive as a problem, they want the change our lives by taxing, taking over our lives, global government and all the other dreams of this nut bunch. Not one has attempted to formulate a mechanism to filter CO2. Instead, it is all about increasing liberal power.
And yes, this election will shape the world for thousands of years. If Hillary wins, it is all over.
Sorry guys. Thanks, but you need evidence regarding the historical record, not paid Deniers’ blog posts. Science, you see, not propaganda. The most up to date data clearly shows now is warmer.
We get it. You guys are terrified of the jihadis and you have our sympathies. Yes, it’s possible some crazy-assed Muslim will try to cut my head off or yours, or blow us up at the airport, but it’s a very unlikely event. You’re much more likely to be shot with the pistol you carry to protect you from Muslims than you are to be killed by an extremist Muslim. You’re more likely to have a heart attack or lung cancer. You’re more likely to die falling off a ladder. You can drive every Muslim out of the US today, and block any from entering, and your life expectancy will not change (unless your cardiologist is a Muslim and can’t save your from your heart attack – in which case your life expectancy will drop suddenly to about 0).
More kids die in America from gunshot accidents than from jihadists.
We get it. You’re afraid. But your fear is not rational and is personal, even selfish. We understand that conservatives are wired to be selfish; to not be concerned with the greater good. We get that you can’t help it. Conservatism is similar to a thought disorder that way.
Muslim extremism is real. And dangerous. But solvable. But global warming is also real. Also dangerous. And more of a long-term threat to America and its people than jihadists. That’s all we’re saying.
J-“Is anyone claiming that GW will destroy the planet?” Nah, just the human race. Minor details. As said, from head climate clown James Hansen in 1986 “…floods, droughts, human misery and if not checked the eventual extinction of the human species.” Glad you asked, though.
j,
So yes, you admit that Teach was lying or maybe just “exaggerating”.
And do you know what Dr. Hansen thinks of you and Teach? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Even under the worst scenario small pockets of humans can survive, probably.
J- “droughts, floods, famine, violent storms, coastal flooding…” All of which have happened before, and will again irrespective of any warming. There are no more of those events now than there were in the past. As far as famine- highly unlikely due to increased crop production from more CO2. As I saw elsewhere-the climate crisis is sneaky. The planet is in danger but there aren’t any actual symptoms
j,
But you don’t even admit that the Earth is warming, much less warming from our burning fossil fuels.
So of course droughts, floods, famines are of no concern to you. Millions die each year from malnourishment, often from famines.
A little advice – this is a fast moving scientific field, so it behooves you to try to keep up. (WUWT, CO2 Science, RealScience, PiratesCove, Hockey Schtick is not the same as keeping up).
Yeah, you see that last excerpt in the post regarding what Kristof wrote?
Huh, how about that?
In other words, “DON’T YOU DARE SHOW ME EVIDENCE BASED ON FACTS, THAT’S MEAN”.
“Do you know what Hansen thinks of you and Teach?” Why would I care what that climate clown thinks of me? He has enough problems being in a hole, and he keeps digging. And J-here’s a hint: That you worry about Teach allegedly exaggerating is comical in light of what we read everyday of doomsday scenarios that never happen from the astrology crowd. “Floods droughts and famine are of no concern to you.” Nice diversion, as I said nothing of the sort. I said they’re no worse now than before, which is a true statement. You write the words “floods droughts and famine” and think they prove something. They prove nothing.
Teach:
In other words, you have no evidence to support most of the bullshit you type.
Pop quiz:
Who wrote the following?
A sure sign that a reporter or blogger is about to feed you a line of crap is: In other words. When you read those words, run for the hills, you’re about to be buried in biased bullshit.
Two guesses, and the first one doesn’t count.
“Thanks, but you need evidence regarding the historical record, not paid Deniers’ blog posts.”
Didn’t read the link did you?
Or if you did, you couldn’t understand it, which is more likely. So you shut your eyes, hold your breath, and throw a tantrum instead.
But I’ll give you a chance. Where exactly do you differ with Kullmans analysis?
And no, I won’t accept “evidence” by paid global warming alarmists and cultists nor their blog posts.
So go for it Jeffery, support your bullshit.