Comment Re:This is more than a little bit naive. (Score 0) 712
Kind of a side rant, but I'm not sure what the ultimate purpose of preventing man-made global warming is supposed to be. The best argument I've heard is to prevent the loss of landmass to rising sea water, but that's already going to happen anyways (less than 100k years ago Los Angeles was under water, and no matter what we do it will one day again be under water.) Higher global temperatures have historically resulted in more arable land rather than simple increased droughts. If you want more physical landmass, then you'll need to drop the climate to ice age levels where biodiversity actually tends to suffer. During the age of dinosaurs, the carbon dioxidie PPM was 18 times higher than it is now, biodiversity was at one of its peaks, the overall climate was 8C warmer, and plantlife was more abundant than ever. In other words, history has shown that a warmer planet is literally a more green one.
So what kind of disaster is anti-climate change supposed to avert again?
The rate of change is a potential problem. How many million years did it take after the dinosaurs for 8C of cooling? The ocean rising at a rate that puts LA back underwater in 100,000 years wouldn't cause much trouble, but what if every coastal city needs to fight off the sea Dutch-style within just 100 years? Hundreds of millions of people could be displaced, with widespread social, economic, and political effects.