Climate Change: The Rational Argument

[Bonam]

With all the recent climate change threads, I thought I'd write up my view on the topic. I have alluded to this in the past but I think it deserves its own thread. A bit of a lengthy read, but it provides an alternative to the two conventional positions on climate change.

Let me begin by quickly recounting the two prevalent views on climate change:

View #1: Climate change is happening, and is driven at least partially by human activity. People belonging to this camp argue that we must take whatever measures are feasible to reduce our impact on the climate. They argue that changes in the climate, caused by human activity, could have catastrophic effects. The climate, they argue, should be allowed to evolve naturally, with as little impact from human civilization as possible.

View #2: Any change in the climate is likely caused by natural cycles. People belonging to this camp argue that the human impact on the world's climate is negligible, or at least it has not yet been scientifically proven to be significant. Since changes in the climate are likely simply following natural cycles, they say, we should not worry about them and let the climate change however it will naturally. We can continue our economic and industrial activities as normal and not worry about climate change.

Now, both of these two positions have something in common. They share the assumption that a climate that changes due to natural cycles is a good and acceptable thing. By holding this assumption, people are taking as an axiom that there is value in having the climate follow a natural cycle, and [at least in View #1] negative value in causing the climate to deviate from natural cycles.

Now, why is this the prevalent opinion? What is the inherent value in having climate follow natural cycles? The argument for this position seems to rely on the sentiment that humans unduly affecting the Earth's environment is a bad thing, that nature must be allowed to take its course.

But, humans have been affecting the Earth's environment since the dawn of civilization. The progress of civilization can be measured by the extent to which we have modified our environment and utilized it to provide for an ever increasing population and sophistication of our societies. These changes to the environment started on a small scale, from converting forests to farmland, to digging canals to provide irrigation, to building cities where humans can live at a much higher population density than they can in the natural environment. The scale at which we have been able to modify the environment has increased as civilization has progressed.

Why, then, should we hold the assumption that on a larger scale, that is, on a global scale, the environment must be allowed to take a natural course? Why should we automatically reject the notion of affecting the climate on a global scale?

The reality is that we now have the capability to affect the world's overall climate. Even if those who hold View #2 are right, and we have not yet done so significantly, we nevertheless have the capability to do so. If we wanted to cause rapid warming of the Earth we could easily increase our output of greenhouse gases substantially, and we could furthermore scatter dark particulate matter over the Earth's ice sheets to greatly increase the amount of radiation they absorb, rapidly melting them and increasing the Earth's temperature. If we wanted to cool the Earth, we could sequester greenhouse gases, not only those we produce but those that are naturally in the atmosphere (this can be done through the seeding of kelp forests and algae), and we could scatter reflective material over the Earth's darker surfaces, to reflect radiation where it would otherwise be absorbed. These are just examples, there are many other ways of affecting the Earth's climate discussed in the scientific literature. While the scale of such undertakings would be rather large, they are clearly within our technical capability, and even more powerful means to affect the world's climate will become available as our technology continues to advance.

Here, then, is my argument:

- Rather than placing value on "letting nature take its course", the value should rather be placed on affecting the environment in such a way (if at all) as to be optimal for the growth and advance of human civilization. This has always been the case when we have in the past sought to alter the environment on smaller scales.

- To this end, the main thrust of climate studies should have the goal not of determining whether global warming is happening, but rather, it should strive to determine what the OPTIMAL climate would be. This optimum would be in terms of carrying capacity for technological human civilization. Perhaps the Earth's current climate is already much too warm. If we could cool the Earth and lower the water level, more land would be created around the world's coastlines, among other effects. Or, perhaps the Earth is already much too cold. Perhaps warming it substantially and thawing the world's frozen wastelands like Greenland, northern regions of Russia and Canada, and perhaps even Antarctica, would allow human civilization to grow in these newly hospitable locations. Or perhaps the climate we currently have is ideal, and we should cause it to remain as it is, even if natural cycles would otherwise produce either cooling or warming. This is something that deserves to be studied thoroughly.

- Once we have determined an optimum global climate, we should take whatever economically viable and internationally agreeable means are available to affect change to that end, so that we can achieve that climate. Of course, some changes to the global climate would be beneficial to some nations and adverse to others, and such effects would have to be taken into account and worked out in some framework. We may even discover more subtle ways of affecting the climate (for example by modifying ocean currents), so we could cool some areas while warming others, which could be even more beneficial for improving the Earth's carrying capacity.

So, both sides in the mainstream climate change argument are wrong. One side wants to reduce human impact and let nature take its course. The other side holds that we don't yet have any substantial impact, and that the climate should change naturally and we needn't think about it. Neither takes into account or even really thinks about what would actually be best for our civilization. I believe that that should be the premise, the ultimate value from which the discussion proceeds, not "let nature take its course" but "shape the environment to best benefit humanity".

Some may argue that we do not yet have the knowledge or capability to reliably engineer the environment in the way I propose. Perhaps our scientific conclusions will tell us one thing, and when we actually implement it, it will actually cause problems rather than benefits. That may indeed be possible, but our scientific understanding is continually increasing, and sooner or later we should have a good understanding of this subject. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the results of our conscious efforts to optimize the environment would be any worse than the natural environment, the conditions of which are after all random and can support a large human civilization only by chance. I say that with enough knowledge we could do better.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Bonam

[Guest TrueMetis]

I like it.

[Moonlight Graham]

This isn't exactly a new idea. It is called geoengineering

The reason why this wouldn't work any time in the foreseeable future is that we currently know so little about climate and how all variables work together, that even if we somehow figured out the optimal climate for humans, it would be impossible to predict what one change to the environment will have on other aspects of the environment.

Some people want to spew aerosols into the air to cool the earth. But nobody has no freaking clue what the actually global consequences of this would be. Maybe it would cool the earth, yet maybe have other more negative effects. Heck maybe it would somehow warm the earth. Climate models aren't very reliable, we'd never be able to predict the variables with this idea.

basically, even if one thinks this is a good idea (which, on the most fundamental levels, i dont) we could spend a ton of money trying to change the climate and not have the effect we wanted, or even make something worse elsewhere. The environment is like the human body. Give the human body some some prescription medicine and you're going to have side-effects, that which you have no idea what they will be unless you test them first...and even then you don't know.

It's an intriguing idea, there is just no way it could be safely and predictably implemented given the state of the science.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

...

It's an intriguing idea, there is just no way it could be safely and predictably implemented given the state of the science.

Like I said in the last paragraph of my opening post... science is constantly progressing. If we don't have the knowledge now, we will have it in the future. The progress of science continues to accelerate, I think we'll know enough sooner than you might expect.

Also, working towards what we believe is an optimum climate seems to make more sense than blindly trying to keep to natural cycles, which may very well drift away from the optimum over time. Trying to determine an optimum and implementing reasonable measures towards it doesn't mean using dangerous and unproven methods. If all we have to work with is CO2 concentrations we can use those, either decreasing or increasing them as needed. But other methods will become available over time if research in the field continues.

Edited April 13, 2010 by Bonam

[Keepitsimple]

Putting catastophic outlooks aside and accepting that any significant Climate Change will occur slowly over centuries, one could ask - would the world be better off a few degrees warmer - or a few degrees cooler? The time scale is important - 200 years for example....plenty of time for adaptation. Even if we experienced some loss of coastal land, the buildings on it would slowly age and be torn down over time. Some land would be reclaimed for crops - others would be lost to desertifcation. Civilization could expand northward.....and rightly or wrongly, advanced civililation prospers in moderate climates - of which we'd have more. Water would seem to be more plentiful in many areas with increased precipitation. More importantly, technology would have been moving forward in leaps and bounds. But the question is - what's better - a slightly warmer planetr - or a cooler one? All this talk about CO2 will be moot in 100 years as fossil fuels run their course and alternate energy sources abound. Fusion will be here around that time - unlimited energy. Give it some thought.

[Pliny]

I don't think the argument is about climate change at all. It is about mankind and civilization. Environmentalists would fit in the first category that something must be done now to stop climate change. But they are against the current civilization and would have us regress to "living off the land". It is the whole lifestyle they are against and not the environment they are for. If we outlawed cars they wouldn't be happy, if the population of the world dropped a few billion they wouldn't be happy. If greenhouse gases were entirely eliminated they wouldn't be happy. Although these are all things they claim they want the achievement of their goals doesn't seem to appease them.

What is it that they really want?

In my opinion, they are useful tools. Although their nuttiness is blatantly obvious, voices of reason and sanity are for some reason absent in most influential areas such as the halls of academia, the media and political circles. In fact critics of any environmental movement are met with intolerance. It seems any criticism is construed to mean that person is for the destruction of the environment and must be silenced by being discredited and ignored. Meanwhile great dreams of wealth redistribution and concentration of political power are being envisioned by globally concerned politicians.

Basically, Waldo is just a tool!

[waldo]

If all we have to work with is CO2 concentrations we can use those, either decreasing or increasing them as needed. But other methods will become available over time if research in the field continues.

until you added this qualifier… your highlight to geo-engineering simply fell into the delaying hands of those absolute deniers who posture for geo-engineering over adaptation & mitigation (see American Enterprise Institute… see Bjorn Lomborg… see Eric Brickel..... why, see Pliny in the preceding post ).

geo-engineering is not a replacement for mitigation of carbon emissions… where geo-engineering may fit is if the worst-case assessments can’t be avoided even with major emission reductions – and that in itself suggests measured analysis and appropriate R&D proceed to that worst-case possible outcome scenario… but… not to the detriment of an immediate focus towards major emission reductions.

the AGW climate change problem will not solve itself through some miracle of an as yet unidentified science/solution – delay packaged with shiny geo-engineering ribbon… is still delay.

[waldo]

In my opinion, they are useful tools. Although their nuttiness is blatantly obvious, voices of reason and sanity are for some reason absent in most influential areas such as the halls of academia, the media and political circles. In fact critics of any environmental movement are met with intolerance. It seems any criticism is construed to mean that person is for the destruction of the environment and must be silenced by being discredited and ignored. Meanwhile great dreams of wealth redistribution and concentration of political power are being envisioned by globally concerned politicians.

ah yes! The deniers pull-card is to cast those as supportive of the theory of AGW climate change as miscast manipulative "enviros"... who somehow... have managed to co-opt, as he describes, "halls of academia, the media and political circles". He however, falls short of actually labeling those participatory scientists, media representatives or politicians as "enviros". He also fails to recall the last time he attempted to posture that the media was acting as an echo-chamber for those supporting the theory of AGW climate change - hello!... for the most part, today's lazy mainstream journalism simply parrots the loudest denier howlers and their fabricated bullshit - how soon Pliny forgets!

Pliny... why are you avoiding answering your "proven proof" questions? Is there a problem?

[Pliny]

ah yes! The deniers pull-card is to cast those as supportive of the theory of AGW climate change as miscast manipulative "enviros"... who somehow... have managed to co-opt, as he describes, "halls of academia, the media and political circles". He however, falls short of actually labeling those participatory scientists, media representatives or politicians as "enviros". He also fails to recall the last time he attempted to posture that the media was acting as an echo-chamber for those supporting the theory of AGW climate change - hello!... for the most part, today's lazy mainstream journalism simply parrots the loudest denier howlers and their fabricated bullshit - how soon Pliny forgets!

Pliny... why are you avoiding answering your "proven proof" questions? Is there a problem?

The mainstream is behind you and your cause. You latest was something about British Parliament exonerating your Mann.

I did answer those questions actually. Finally got around to it. Not the hottest topic these days, you know.

I have asked what your interest is in the climate debate but you have yet to answer. Certainly it isn't to save the stupid masses from their own folly? But I don't expect an answer since it is just about how deep your love of humanity goes and your plans to save the planet from our troubling and damaging existence.

[waldo]

The mainstream is behind you and your cause. You latest was something about British Parliament exonerating your Mann.

oh please! It's actually Phil Jones the British Parliament investigation exonerated... in any case, using that particular example, there's a mammoth skewed imbalance between the press coverage on Hackergate versus the actual exoneration... it's no contest. And that is the game of deniers - legitimacy doesn't matter to them/to you - it's simply a "game" of getting negative and dishonest commentary within the mainstream... to deniers, it's all about casting doubt & uncertainty.

I did answer those questions actually. Finally got around to it. Not the hottest topic these days, you know.

No... your response did not answer the questions, in any shape or form. You are simply another of the long line of sheep-like deniers who, when challenged, can't even articulate what level of scientific founded "proof" they seek, they require. Denial, for the sake of denial.

don't go all out there on a limb, hey Pliny? Since you're the ever present naysayer with nothing ever offered to support your naysaying, let's have you step up and answer the following... let's determine exactly where it breaks down for you - hey?

Q1 - is it warming... or is it not? You speak to a temperature rise while at the same time questioning whether, "global warming may be true". Which is it? Is it warming... or is it not?

Q2 - has the level of atmospheric CO2 risen... or has it not?

Q3 - has the level of rising atmospheric CO2 been attributed as a natural event... or has it been attributed to mankind?

Q4 - since we always seem to need a refresh on the "point of proof" within science: Science does not deal in "proof"... based upon a balance of evidence, science deals in formulated theories to explain the evidence. Scientific research/experimentation is relied upon to confirm, to adjust or to challenge/modify theories as new scientific understanding is realized. The theory of AGW climate change is based on laws of physics and is supported by reams of empirical observation/data and highly complex models... we don't have the luxury of an isolated "test-tube" Earth to experiment upon.

With all that being said Pliny, accepting to your "proof premise", exactly what is it that would constitute "proof" for you? What observations, what evidence would you consider as "proof" that AGW climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels?

Well, proof to me would be an honest concern for humanity - not a condemnation of him and the entire civilzation. It would also include plans on how we could take advantage of global warming not just that we must stop as much activity as possible, regress to living off the land, become vegetarians, declare all virgin territory off limits to mankind or any development, etc. - Basically disappear from the face of the earth.

[Michael Hardner]

Maybe we can leave the ping-pong on the other thread. This thread represents a separate submission by Bonham.

I know that there was some discussion in the past as to whether the US forestry service should put out 'natural' forest fires, e.g. fires caused by lightning. This strikes me as similar.

I think there are some good ideas posted in this on both sides, however in order to pursue either option the entire world needs to be on the same page. This doesn't necessarily mean a world government, but at least some kind of body, some kind of forum that works.

I think that that would be the most important thing to come out of this - IMO it would be more important than the solution itself.

Unfortunately, though, the hog-callers in the US who bleat against climate change will see a loss of sovereignty in either suggestion and will mobilize the bovine mooers in their Cable News herds to rally against it.

Unless you can pay them off. Or take them out.

[Bonam]

until you added this qualifier… your highlight to geo-engineering simply fell into the delaying hands of those absolute deniers who posture for geo-engineering over adaptation & mitigation (see American Enterprise Institute… see Bjorn Lomborg… see Eric Brickel..... why, see Pliny in the preceding post ).

geo-engineering is not a replacement for mitigation of carbon emissions… where geo-engineering may fit is if the worst-case assessments can’t be avoided even with major emission reductions – and that in itself suggests measured analysis and appropriate R&D proceed to that worst-case possible outcome scenario… but… not to the detriment of an immediate focus towards major emission reductions.

I specifically avoided the use of the term geo-engineering. That is because of its connotation of using engineering to prevent warming of the Earth or reduce warming in the case that emissions cannot be reduced and we need to return to the natural cycle temperatures by other means.

The proposal is distinct from this in that it does NOT assume that the current temperature or the natural cycle temperature is the ideal target to strive for. Like I said before, this needs to be studied more thoroughly. It could be that by warming the Earth we will actually provide a net benefit to human civilization, or it could be that we could get advantages by cooling it substantially from where it currently is. Or it could be that the present temperature is optimal and our efforts should be aimed at stopping the natural cycle. Whatever the case may be, it still needs to be researched and determined.

Simply cutting emissions or simply using other methods to reduce warming is not what I am talking about here.

Maybe we can leave the ping-pong on the other thread. This thread represents a separate submission by Bonham.

Thanks Michael

I know that there was some discussion in the past as to whether the US forestry service should put out 'natural' forest fires, e.g. fires caused by lightning. This strikes me as similar.

Indeed, it is similar, but of course on a much a larger scale.

I think there are some good ideas posted in this on both sides, however in order to pursue either option the entire world needs to be on the same page. This doesn't necessarily mean a world government, but at least some kind of body, some kind of forum that works.

I agree, that would definitely be the biggest barrier to implementing any large scale environmental changes of the type I mentioned. Getting an international consensus on the subject would be very difficult. There are of course multiple outcomes in this regard, as in any other action which will have consequences for multiple nations. Specifically, it could be discussed and debated and come to some conclusion at international meetings (analogous to those that presently take place on issues like climate change). Or, equally possible, it could come down to unilateral action by a powerful nation or group of nations, another form of decision making that happens frequently and also shapes world events.

Unfortunately, though, the hog-callers in the US who bleat against climate change will see a loss of sovereignty in either suggestion and will mobilize the bovine mooers in their Cable News herds to rally against it.

These are hardly the only people who would protest a loss of sovereignty. There is plenty of such sentiment in Europe, as can be seen with the difficulties in strengthening EU ties. And I'm sure many other nations around the world would have a thing or two to say about it as well.

Nevertheless, regardless of the international political climate, the reality is that there is already significant international discussion and (to some extent) action on climate issues. Currently, this discussion and action revolves around cutting emissions of various types. As scientific and technical knowledge of how we can optimize and affect the Earth's climate progresses, I don't think that starting to discuss and implement such things internationally will be so far fetched.

[Pliny]

Maybe we can leave the ping-pong on the other thread. This thread represents a separate submission by Bonham.

I know that there was some discussion in the past as to whether the US forestry service should put out 'natural' forest fires, e.g. fires caused by lightning. This strikes me as similar.

I think there are some good ideas posted in this on both sides, however in order to pursue either option the entire world needs to be on the same page. This doesn't necessarily mean a world government, but at least some kind of body, some kind of forum that works.

I know let's start an International Panel on Climate Change. It could be headquartered in the UN. What do you think?

Unfortunately, though, the hog-callers in the US who bleat against climate change will see a loss of sovereignty in either suggestion and will mobilize the bovine mooers in their Cable News herds to rally against it.

Unless you can pay them off. Or take them out.

Whew! for a minute I thought you were serious about leaving the ping-pong on the other thread.

PS: I won't comment anymore on this thread because my views are well known. I can incite Waldo to obtuse pedantic rants on the other threads.

Edited April 15, 2010 by Pliny

[August1991]

I specifically avoided the use of the term geo-engineering. That is because of its connotation of using engineering to prevent warming of the Earth or reduce warming in the case that emissions cannot be reduced and we need to return to the natural cycle temperatures by other means.

You can avoid using the term "geoengineering" but that doesn't mean you have somehow invented anything new. A rose by any other name...

At its root, the idea of a carbon tax or a "cap and trade" scheme amount to geoengineering. The idea is that we can somehow alter our behaviour to mitigate our current effects on climate or the environment.

The problem here is that we simply do not know enough about how the environment works. When it comes to something as complex as how the planet arrives at an equilibrium temperature, we don't know all the forces at play and to what degree they are involved.

Great harm can be done based on bad knowledge. For centuries, medical doctors made incisions and bled ill patients in the sincere belief that removing bloood would somehow cure them.

Edited April 15, 2010 by August1991

[waldo]

Simply cutting emissions or simply using other methods to reduce warming is not what I am talking about here.

... certainly, I gave you your due in suggesting, in the context of "traditional" geo-engineering musings, I can accept allocating appropriate R&D to investigate mitigation measures in the face of not being able to avoid worst-case assessments related to climate change projections. I also emphasized that geo-engineering is not a replacement for mitigation of carbon emissions and any accepted initiatives can't begin to the detriment and delay of emission reduction policy/action. I also highlighted the 'in-vogue' nature of geo-engineering by the denier camp... essentially an outlet to delay actual policy and measures to seriously begin to move away from fossil-fuel consumption and toward more sustainable options.

if you truly want to stick to your fanciful 'non-traditional' view of geo-engineering, you might advise how global consensus would be reached on mankind's "optimal environment... optimal climate"... and how your described, global level "optimal growth and advance of human civilization", would be practically regionalized for real-world deployment. You might also advise whether you believe it will be any easier to secure treaty and organization agreements to deploy a gee-whiz test-tube originated scheme... presuming you could get agreement on the scheme in the first place... any easier than realizing the agreements needed to reduce carbon emissions within the global climate of today?

Edited April 15, 2010 by waldo

[jbg]

Here, then, is my argument:

- Rather than placing value on "letting nature take its course", the value should rather be placed on affecting the environment in such a way (if at all) as to be optimal for the growth and advance of human civilization. This has always been the case when we have in the past sought to alter the environment on smaller scales.

- To this end, the main thrust of climate studies should have the goal not of determining whether global warming is happening, but rather, it should strive to determine what the OPTIMAL climate would be. This optimum would be in terms of carrying capacity for technological human civilization. Perhaps the Earth's current climate is already much too warm. If we could cool the Earth and lower the water level, more land would be created around the world's coastlines, among other effects. Or, perhaps the Earth is already much too cold. Perhaps warming it substantially and thawing the world's frozen wastelands like Greenland, northern regions of Russia and Canada, and perhaps even Antarctica, would allow human civilization to grow in these newly hospitable locations. Or perhaps the climate we currently have is ideal, and we should cause it to remain as it is, even if natural cycles would otherwise produce either cooling or warming. This is something that deserves to be studied thoroughly.

Good, thought-provoking post.

My problem is that if the world cannot agree on how to parcel out a few acres of Mideast land how are they going to agree on an optimal climate for each part of the globe?

I agree that if we enter into a new Ice Age life in Toronto and New York becomes a lot less comfy, and moving around 100 million people living in Megalopolitan Northeast U.S. and the Toronto-Montreal Axis may not be easy. But, how does the world reach agreement on this?

[Michael Hardner]

But, how does the world reach agreement on this?

We build consensus outwards from those who have knowledge to those who recognize knowledge and wisdom, but that don't have it themselves. Next we convince those who appreciate the ones who recognize knowledge and listen to the wise.

Finally, their friends (the idiots) will follow along.

[Keepitsimple]

Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Link: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/UnintendedConsequences.html

[Keepitsimple]

With all the recent climate change threads, I thought I'd write up my view on the topic. I have alluded to this in the past but I think it deserves its own thread. A bit of a lengthy read, but it provides an alternative to the two conventional positions on climate change.

Let me begin by quickly recounting the two prevalent views on climate change:

View #1: Climate change is happening, and is driven at least partially by human activity.

It would be nice if that was the view but in fact, these people are adamant that most of the warming in the last half of the 20th century was caused by humans. Many would even say almost all of the warming was due to human influence. Regardless, their "overwhelming consensus" is that humans are the major driver behind Global Warming.

And here's what I posted back in April:

Putting catastophic outlooks aside and accepting that any significant Climate Change will occur slowly over centuries, one could ask - would the world be better off a few degrees warmer - or a few degrees cooler? The time scale is important - 200 years for example....plenty of time for adaptation. Even if we experienced some loss of coastal land, the buildings on it would slowly age and be torn down over time. Some land would be reclaimed for crops - others would be lost to desertifcation. Civilization could expand northward.....and rightly or wrongly, advanced civililation prospers in moderate climates - of which we'd have more. Water would seem to be more plentiful in many areas with increased precipitation. More importantly, technology would have been moving forward in leaps and bounds. But the question is - what's better - a slightly warmer planetr - or a cooler one? All this talk about CO2 will be moot in 100 years as fossil fuels run their course and alternate energy sources abound. Fusion will be here around that time - unlimited energy. Give it some thought.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[bush_cheney2004]

....Unfortunately, though, the hog-callers in the US who bleat against climate change will see a loss of sovereignty in either suggestion and will mobilize the bovine mooers in their Cable News herds to rally against it.

Unless you can pay them off. Or take them out.

"Or take them out"??? Are you advocating for the murder of US "hog callers? Can we not find some "hog callers" to kill in Canada? Or China? Or India? Or European Union?

[Oleg Bach]

With all the recent climate change threads, I thought I'd write up my view on the topic. I have alluded to this in the past but I think it deserves its own thread. A bit of a lengthy read, but it provides an alternative to the two conventional positions on climate change.

Let me begin by quickly recounting the two prevalent views on climate change:

View #1: Climate change is happening, and is driven at least partially by human activity. People belonging to this camp argue that we must take whatever measures are feasible to reduce our impact on the climate. They argue that changes in the climate, caused by human activity, could have catastrophic effects. The climate, they argue, should be allowed to evolve naturally, with as little impact from human civilization as possible.

View #2: Any change in the climate is likely caused by natural cycles. People belonging to this camp argue that the human impact on the world's climate is negligible, or at least it has not yet been scientifically proven to be significant. Since changes in the climate are likely simply following natural cycles, they say, we should not worry about them and let the climate change however it will naturally. We can continue our economic and industrial activities as normal and not worry about climate change.

Now, both of these two positions have something in common. They share the assumption that a climate that changes due to natural cycles is a good and acceptable thing. By holding this assumption, people are taking as an axiom that there is value in having the climate follow a natural cycle, and [at least in View #1] negative value in causing the climate to deviate from natural cycles.

Now, why is this the prevalent opinion? What is the inherent value in having climate follow natural cycles? The argument for this position seems to rely on the sentiment that humans unduly affecting the Earth's environment is a bad thing, that nature must be allowed to take its course.

But, humans have been affecting the Earth's environment since the dawn of civilization. The progress of civilization can be measured by the extent to which we have modified our environment and utilized it to provide for an ever increasing population and sophistication of our societies. These changes to the environment started on a small scale, from converting forests to farmland, to digging canals to provide irrigation, to building cities where humans can live at a much higher population density than they can in the natural environment. The scale at which we have been able to modify the environment has increased as civilization has progressed.

Why, then, should we hold the assumption that on a larger scale, that is, on a global scale, the environment must be allowed to take a natural course? Why should we automatically reject the notion of affecting the climate on a global scale?

The reality is that we now have the capability to affect the world's overall climate. Even if those who hold View #2 are right, and we have not yet done so significantly, we nevertheless have the capability to do so. If we wanted to cause rapid warming of the Earth we could easily increase our output of greenhouse gases substantially, and we could furthermore scatter dark particulate matter over the Earth's ice sheets to greatly increase the amount of radiation they absorb, rapidly melting them and increasing the Earth's temperature. If we wanted to cool the Earth, we could sequester greenhouse gases, not only those we produce but those that are naturally in the atmosphere (this can be done through the seeding of kelp forests and algae), and we could scatter reflective material over the Earth's darker surfaces, to reflect radiation where it would otherwise be absorbed. These are just examples, there are many other ways of affecting the Earth's climate discussed in the scientific literature. While the scale of such undertakings would be rather large, they are clearly within our technical capability, and even more powerful means to affect the world's climate will become available as our technology continues to advance.

Here, then, is my argument:

- Rather than placing value on "letting nature take its course", the value should rather be placed on affecting the environment in such a way (if at all) as to be optimal for the growth and advance of human civilization. This has always been the case when we have in the past sought to alter the environment on smaller scales.

- To this end, the main thrust of climate studies should have the goal not of determining whether global warming is happening, but rather, it should strive to determine what the OPTIMAL climate would be. This optimum would be in terms of carrying capacity for technological human civilization. Perhaps the Earth's current climate is already much too warm. If we could cool the Earth and lower the water level, more land would be created around the world's coastlines, among other effects. Or, perhaps the Earth is already much too cold. Perhaps warming it substantially and thawing the world's frozen wastelands like Greenland, northern regions of Russia and Canada, and perhaps even Antarctica, would allow human civilization to grow in these newly hospitable locations. Or perhaps the climate we currently have is ideal, and we should cause it to remain as it is, even if natural cycles would otherwise produce either cooling or warming. This is something that deserves to be studied thoroughly.

- Once we have determined an optimum global climate, we should take whatever economically viable and internationally agreeable means are available to affect change to that end, so that we can achieve that climate. Of course, some changes to the global climate would be beneficial to some nations and adverse to others, and such effects would have to be taken into account and worked out in some framework. We may even discover more subtle ways of affecting the climate (for example by modifying ocean currents), so we could cool some areas while warming others, which could be even more beneficial for improving the Earth's carrying capacity.

So, both sides in the mainstream climate change argument are wrong. One side wants to reduce human impact and let nature take its course. The other side holds that we don't yet have any substantial impact, and that the climate should change naturally and we needn't think about it. Neither takes into account or even really thinks about what would actually be best for our civilization. I believe that that should be the premise, the ultimate value from which the discussion proceeds, not "let nature take its course" but "shape the environment to best benefit humanity".

Some may argue that we do not yet have the knowledge or capability to reliably engineer the environment in the way I propose. Perhaps our scientific conclusions will tell us one thing, and when we actually implement it, it will actually cause problems rather than benefits. That may indeed be possible, but our scientific understanding is continually increasing, and sooner or later we should have a good understanding of this subject. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that the results of our conscious efforts to optimize the environment would be any worse than the natural environment, the conditions of which are after all random and can support a large human civilization only by chance. I say that with enough knowledge we could do better.

YOU IMPRESS ANONOMOUS ME..your essay is too long and unreadable..all I caught was that they are wrong on both sides of the argument - I agree with that - that it is not about all these complex climatic issues - but simply about DIRT..humans are dirty and they dirty the sky - the water and the earth plus the air - it has an old fashioned name- pollution?

[Michael Hardner]

"Or take them out"??? Are you advocating for the murder of US "hog callers? Can we not find some "hog callers" to kill in Canada? Or China? Or India? Or European Union?

Not murder... but Beck has shown that he will do pretty much anything for money - so we just have to pay him more to shut up.

[Pliny]

Not murder... but Beck has shown that he will do pretty much anything for money - so we just have to pay him more to shut up.

Is that perhaps how the rich get richer? They are paid more to shut them up.

[Keepitsimple]

An interesting story appeared in The Star. The debate continues.......Global Warming morphs to Climate Change morphs to Sustainable Development.

World leaders will give final approval on a plan to radically overhaul the global climate change debate at summit meetings in Toronto this weekend in the hope of breaking the deadlock in talks for an international emissions-reduction deal, the Toronto Star has learned.

Under the new framework, talk of mitigating greenhouse gases and adapting to a warmer planet will be replaced by green economic growth and resilient development.

The goal, said one person briefed on the plan, is to ban climatese jargon incomprehensible to the average person from the climate change lexicon.

The idea for the climate change panel was conceived ahead of the last climate change summit in December, but its need was underscored by the weak emissions targets, lukewarm commitments and the divide between rich and poor countries that emerged from the 192-nation meeting in Copenhagen.

Climate change came to a head in Copenhagen, where it became a treaty about everything under the sun, from indigenous rights to gender rights to income equity. It was too heavy a load on the climate change issue itself, said John Drexhage, climate change director of the International Institute of Sustainable Development.

Climate change progress has also been hampered by revelations that some prominent scientists fudged their calculations to make a more convincing case that greenhouse gases are causing world temperatures to rise.

The panels primary role, Drexhage said, is to make recommendations about how to get back to basics with sustainable development.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/torontog20summit/article/828329--talks-could-end-deadlock-on-emissions-deal

Edited June 27, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Remiel]

I appreciate the gist of your argument, Bonam, but I am skeptical of the political implications of such a scheme. The only reason that we have any consensus on climate change at all right now is because we are essentially engaging in catastrophic risk management. That is, we are banking on the notion that more of the same could end up really, really bad for everyone. What you are proposing would dash whatever tenuous alliance has been formed. If such activities were to become widespread, it could effectively lead to the onset of geo/terra-war, which itself could be catastrophic. Natural change is not desirable because being natural is good, it is desirable because it is a " let the chips fall where they may " approach that is not so conflict laden as the alternative.