This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
Objection:
The Earth has had much warmer climates in the past, what is so special about the current climate? It seems like a generally warmer world will be better.
Answer:
I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature for planet Earth. Surely it is better now for all of us than it was 20,000 years ago when so much land was trapped beneath ice sheets. But anywhere between the recent climate and the most extreme one we may be heading for with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, one global mean temperature seems just as good as any other. Maybe it is even better with no ice caps anywhere.
But the critical issue with what is going on today is not where the temperature is or would be and not with what it may end up being. The critical issue is how fast it is moving.
Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which the global temperature is rising today is very likely unique in the history of our species.
This kind of sudden change is even very rare in geological history, though perhaps not unprecedented. So the planet may have been through similar things before, that sounds reassuring, right? Well, once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of some historical precedent or another actually becomes anything but reassuring. Rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most of the mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.
What we know about ecosystems and what geologic history demonstrates is that dramatic climate changes - up or down or sideways - are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.
This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.
"What's Wrong With Warm Weather" was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.
Environment
Politics
Comments
Hey coby (: I am currently writing a research paper on Global Warming, and I've always accepted the side of the argument that states that "Global Warming is real and if humans don't change something then Earth's future is destined to increased mortality rates, coastlines flooding, and species becoming extinct." Feeling that I could not write an unbiased research paper without knowing the "other side" of the argument I decided to start reading Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. If you have not read it, I highly suggest it, even if you do not agree with any of what he has written in his book, it should help you better understand the skeptics of Global Warming. This book really opened my eyes to some of the arguments against radical action against Global Warming…It stated that yes, Global Warming is a real problem, but it is not the only problem. I was wondering what your opinion on some of the things that where stated in Lomborg’s book, and considering you know a great deal about Global Warming that you might be able to make some things more clear. One thing that Lomborg brought up that caught my attention stated, “When two thousand people died from heat in the UK, it produced a public outcry that is still heard. However, the BBC recently ran a very quiet story telling us that deaths caused by cold weather in England and Wales for the past years have hovered around twenty-five thousand each winter…In Europe as a whole, about two hundred thousand people die from excess heat each year. However, about 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. That is more than seven times the total number of heat deaths. Just in the past decade, Europe has lost about fifteen million people to the cold, more than four hundred times the iconic heat deaths from 2003. That we so easily neglect these deaths and so easily embrace those caused by global warming tells us of a breakdown in our sense of proportion.” He also states “the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount. In total, about 1.4 million people will be saved each year, due to more than 1.7 fewer deaths from cardiovascular diseases and 365,000 more deaths from respiratory disorders.” So if warmer weather would cause less deaths than the under emphasized cold weather deaths, then why wouldn’t we want warmer weather? Thank you so much for your time, and I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog!
Posted by: Aimee | September 4, 2008 10:29 AM
I thought the whole problem with warming wasn't a direct cause of deaths but more an indirect one as regular sources of food get interrupted. Lomborg is beating at a strawman, IMO. Deaths as a result of extremes of temperature will always be around, no matter the change in global temperatures. (It's not like winter and summer will be replaced with new, as yet unnamed, seasons.) However, plants won't necessarily continue to grow in the places our current infrastructure is set up to deal with. Drought and famine are difficult to deal with and often lead to worse scenarios like war.
Another thing to keep in mind is the media is seldom/never to be trusted on scientific matters. They misunderstand (sometimes on purpose) and overdramatize. They're not a public service for providing information; they're companies hoping to make sales by entertaining. So who cares if they make a big deal of summer deaths? They also make a big deal about Britney's overexposed vagina. IMO they're more to be trusted on issues surrounding exposed genitalia than science. (There are a few exceptions, but for the most part...)
Posted by: pough | September 4, 2008 12:21 PM
I agree with pough's commnt, the major flaw in Lomborg is his continual use of strawman arguments. The direct heat related deaths are absolutely not the major concern about GW. Also, his continual and seamless interchanging of science and media reports is very deceptive. Who cares what the media focuses on, look at the UN reports themselves.
Here are some good resources for you wrt Lomborg, Aimee, I have never done the work of carefully reading and debunking him myself, but these folks have:
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/examples.htm
This site is a great repository of links, including rebuttals to the criticisms:
http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm
And in case all of those are too "Skeptical Environmentalist" oriented, try checking out this great dismantling of a Lomborg OpEd based on "Cool It" graciously provided by "Things Break":
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/willful-idocy/
Posted by: coby | September 4, 2008 2:18 PM