Comment: Re:Hypocritical media attack (Score 1) 375
Comment: Re:Heartland Institute (Score 1) 603
Comment: Re:I dunno why so many are AGW (Score 1) 603
Can't we just, um, adapt?
Oh, we will. At least those who are not living on mineral resource poor island nations expected to disappear underwater will. However consider that for many people currently living in barely habitable areas, AGW turning those lands into inhabitable locations will mean two things: population migration which makes the economic migration of the last 30 years (that already have the Tea Partiers in a lather) look like peanuts, and brutal wars over water and arable land. The last is good if you're into supplying weaponry for the highest bidder. However wars were the stakes are survival, and not just ideology, tend to be the most brutal because possible repercussions over "war crimes" don't matter if your alternative is watching your family/tribe/country drown or starve to death. And once a people have become habituated to that sort of conflict, they will use those tactics to compete for other resources, including ones you might find useful. Finally, for some, no forced adaptation will be possible and AGW-caused change will simply result in death.
I'm reminded of when the hole in the ozone layer was discovered in the 80s and entrenched economic interests fought controls over CFCs and recommended wearing UV-blocking sunglasses and sunblock, omitting how you were supposed to pull that off for the wildlife and livestock. Humans are very good at adapting, but the members of the food chains that we depend on are rarely as gifted in that regard, with dire consequences.
In short, adaptation of this sort usually implies drastic, traumatic change. So saying I'm not willing to change now because I can always adapt later, is sort of like saying I'm not willing to stop drinking heavily now and can deal with treating cirrhosis of the liver when I have to.