tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post3791787989515021920..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-52416021690137211982008-05-08T17:38:00.000-04:002008-05-08T17:38:00.000-04:00I will, unusually, defend one part of RPJr's opus....I will, unusually, defend one part of RPJr's opus. I don't think he means "marginal" human impact in the sense of "not severe" but in the sense of much less than the overall impact of climate on human society.<BR/><BR/>His thesis is that we are badly adapted to climate, that humans should abandon all places that can suffer from hurricane or flood damage, and that AGW-impacts are penny-ante in comparison to regular climate impacts (the sensitivity analysis thing). Also, none of this abandoning would cost any money, and we don't need to do much about AGW.<BR/><BR/>I might be exaggerating slightly, but it's the basic idea.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-68903776037776434562008-05-08T15:54:00.000-04:002008-05-08T15:54:00.000-04:00"The only reason he thinks taking action is necess..."The only reason he thinks taking action is necessary is because he personally thinks the effect of man made climate change could be severe, but in the preceding paragraph he said that the effects of man made climate change would be marginal. What is Roger adapting to?"<BR/><BR/>And, since he "personally believes" this even though he also thinks the models can't predict worth spit, what are the grounds for his belief?<BR/><BR/>All very confusing.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-88710776514345875872008-05-08T13:26:00.000-04:002008-05-08T13:26:00.000-04:00There's nothing wrong with talking about adaptatio...There's nothing wrong with talking about adaptation unless it is used to drown out talk of mitigation.<BR/><BR/>but in one regard, the talk of adaptation is really a side show. Humans will adapt, whether anyone talks about it or not. (What did we ever do before the RP<BR/>s of the world came along and told us we "need to adapt"? good grief, it's a wonder the species ever survived)<BR/><BR/>And the idea that any money spent on mitigation is money that could have been spent on adaptation (the poor, or other things) is simply a red herring.<BR/><BR/>my god, we have spent $1 trillion (so far) on a war that was unnecessary by any measurement standard and I hear almost nobody complaining about THAT.<BR/><BR/>These people who say we can't do both are just being disingenuous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49996411003076105592008-05-08T08:09:00.000-04:002008-05-08T08:09:00.000-04:00Where's the reasonable adaptation "vs" mitigation ...Where's the reasonable adaptation "vs" mitigation debate/musings blog?<BR/><BR/>It isn't at Roger Jr's place, but it at least talks about it.<BR/><BR/>I wrote "vs" since it's of course not directly such a question. There has been and will be some adaptation (and suffering) anyway, it's a degree and balance issue.<BR/><BR/>I also mean by reasonable something actually honest and not one of those "we're gonna have to adapt anyway so mitigation is a waste" simpleton things...<BR/><BR/>It's a hard and not simple question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com