Warmists Pivot to Climate Adaptation

[Geee]

American Thinker:

Climate change activists utilize two strategies in their war against global warming: mitigation and adaptation. Despite ongoing efforts, mitigation efforts to cut CO2 emissions are failing. There is little political will in developing countries like China and India to make sacrifices to avert a distant threat that might turn out to be nonexistent. In response, environmentalists are increasingly focusing on adaptation strategies.

Skeptics like Bjorn Lomborg argue that adaptation is significantly more cost-effective than mitigation. Mitigation is governed by the precautionary principle: act now, just in case something in the future might be harmful. With adaptation -- adapting to climate as we go along -- there is no imperative for immediate action. If it turns out that the Earth not warming catastrophically, we will save a lot of money, and if it seems clear that, for example, sea levels are rising, then we spend money in 2030 or 2040 to increase the height of seawalls and take other measures to protect our coastal cities, at a time when our descendants will be wealthier and their technology far superior to ours.

Climate alarmists, however, are outraged by the idea of postponing action, which they portray as burdening our children and grandchildren with our unsolved problems. Money spent now! is evidence of superior moral character. (The "policy initiative" most characteristic of Barack Obama's presidency is labeled "We Can't Wait!") Alarmists therefore apply the precautionary principle to adaptation, undermining its cost advantage.

 

[Valin]

Governor Deval Patrick will commit more than $50 million on Tuesday to help Massachusetts communities and utilities prepare for and protect themselves from the increasing number of destructive storms and rising sea levels blamed on climate change.

3 quick points

1. Always a good idea to prepare for the worst. (although I suspect what they are spending this money on won't do a damn bit of good)

2. Increasing number of destructive storms and rising sea levels? (cite sources please)

3. Huge Major News Flash...the climate is always changing

[nickydog]

This is a really sensible article. I keep repeating your point 3, @Valin, whenever someone wants to talk about climate change, but people like that don't like to hear good sense. They prefer alarm. Your point 1 is also good, as the article attests.

[Valin]

This is a really sensible article. I keep repeating your point 3, @Valin, whenever someone wants to talk about climate change, but people like that don't like to hear good sense. They prefer alarm. Your point 1 is also good, as the article attests.

When CGP was going I would use this image

This is what we think the north American ice sheet looked like 20,000 years ago. Where I am sitting now the ice sheet was 1 mile thick. Geologically speaking 20,000 years ago was two weeks ago.

GOD BLESS GLOBAL WARMING!

 

Simple question:

Assuming man made climate change is true (because it could be) the question I don't see being asked is...What climate should we be trying to achieve? 100..525...35,296 years ago?

 

Language Alert!