"The study—written by James Hansen, NASA’s former lead climate scientist, and 16 co-authors, many of whom are considered among the top in their fields—concludes that glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica will melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years."And so naturally the answer is to immediately halt fossil fuel use, right? I have some serious questions.
First, is there even enough water in every piece of ice on the planet to raise sea levels 10 feet? An interactive map of earth if the sea level rose 216 feet shows much of the eastern sea board and Caribbean underwater along with the fringes of Eurasia, Africa, and somewhat large portions of south america and Australia appearing like massive bays. 216 feet. Let that sink in for a minute.
Also, I generally can't help thinking the Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmists (AGWA) have tunnel vision and see civilization as relatively static. If we have 50 years, and daily updates on sea-level change, do they think we will fail to adapt? I'll come back to these questions shortly. More from the article:
"Hansen called for a “human tipping point”—essentially, a social revolution—as one of the most effective ways of combating climate change, though he still favors a bilateral carbon tax agreed upon by the United States and China as the best near-term climate policy. In the new study, Hansen writes, "there is no morally defensible excuse to delay phase-out of fossil fuel emissions as rapidly as possible.""Clearly he sees adaptation coming from government intervention into the economy, complete with a denial of the catastrophic effects of limiting the use of our cheapest sources of energy. What about the poorest countries? How will they build? Are they supposed to stay in poverty? As for a morally defensible excuse, Alex Epstein makes a great case. He continues here, and here(I recommend all 6 videos here, especially this one, where around 4:50 a girl shows how tainted our moral psychology can become when we don't engage in critical thinking, but I digress.) A bit of an oversimplification, but Epstein's case boils down to: human life is made longer, healthier, and at higher standards through the use of fossil fuels; and to phase out their use before the poorest of the poor have benefited from their use is morally reprehensible.
Meanwhile back at the IPCC, the UN's panel for proving AGW--right, proving it, not researching it.--Chairman R.K.Pachauri in his resignation letter says:
"For me, the protection of planet earth, the survival of all species and the sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma." (emphasis in original)As for the 10' in 50 years, well it sounds to me like people in low lying areas might not want to stay put. Although there are ways to combat rising water. The american experience of westward expansion even before the transcontinental railroads was rapid. Granted homesteading was still an option then, but this thought experiment isn't about legality, merely feasibility.
I don't argue AGW, but I refuse to get alarmed. Skepticism is healthy when the price is freedom. History shows how difficult it is to reclaim once lost. I think taking the long view of climate and climate shifts helps mold a different, less concerned perspective.
I'll just end here with a somewhat random quote from Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, demonstrating the odd nature of conservationism which is of course behind the global warming phobia:
"Compulsory thrift, or attacks on potential savers for not saving and investing enough, are examples of this line of attack. Another is an attack on the user of a natural resource that is being depleted. Anyone who uses such a resource at all, whatever the extent, “deprives” some future descendant of the use. “Conservationists,” therefore, call for lower present use of such resources in favor of greater future use. Not only is this compulsory benefaction an example of the first line of attack, but, if this argument is adopted, logically no resource subject to depletion could ever be used at all. For when the future generation comes of age, it too faces a future generation. This entire line of argument is therefore a peculiarly absurd one."
