|
| I would suspect that if people living closer to the poles are asked they would appreciate the temps to be an extra degree or two warmer. I would also expect that the people living closer to the equator would prefer that the climate they live in to be an extra degree or two colder. Yet the people in both of these extremes haven’t moved to suit their desires. People will always complain about the climate they live in.
Now let’s think about this logically. The temperature range of the environment that humans are living in has a much higher variance than the 1 or 2 degree difference of this claimed crisis. We seem to be able to adapt to a far greater variance than this claimed crisis.
One claim is that ferocity of extreme weather events will increase. I am not going to argue that point as it might occur, it might not. But let’s assume it is true. As of yet, massive human populations are still choosing to live in the areas that are subject to the worst weather events that currently occur on our planet. They are able to adapt to the current weather events. I have yet to hear anyone state where the definite hard line is that will overcome people’s ability to adapt. People will almost certainly just continue to fortify their lives against whatever weather events they are expecting in whatever location they choose to live.
That isn’t to say that life will always be easy. It never was in any extreme weather event anywhere on the planet and often people are caught being too complacent. The “once in a hundred year” type of events simply don’t occur often enough to spend the energy, money and time to fortify their lives against the absolute worst events. Life is all about playing the odds of an experience happening and in this case the odds are that many people will live their entire lives without experiencing the worst weather event possible in their own particular location.
But as I said, let’s assume that weather events really do become more extreme. The people that live in areas that currently have more moderate weather events will almost certainly adopt the practices currently used by people that currently live in the worst weather event areas. The people currently in the worst areas will almost certainly attempt to fortify their lives against even worse conditions. It is hard to say whether they will be successful or not but it is impossible to say that they will not be. We humans currently have successfully adapted to and chose to live in areas of extreme weather and it is highly likely that humans will continue to adapt to those areas in the future. We have not found any hard limit to our ability to adapt to the weather.
So to kind of answer your question the truth is that the only type of environment that humans have chosen to not live in massive numbers is an extremely cold environment. While not a direct answer it does pose the question that if a hotter climate is a bad thing why do humans for the most part currently choose not to live in the coldest areas of the world yet do choose to live in the hottest areas? The only explanation is that in general the advantages of a hotter climate must be greater than the advantages of a colder climate.
The above is about the temperature and weather events. If anyone wants to dispute it I would welcome an open and honest discussion about it.
Underlying this topic is what is claimed to be the root cause. The root cause is claimed to be increased atmospheric Co2. Maybe someone can and will honestly and truthfully dispute what I wrote above, which in simple terms states that the temps and extreme weather will not be an absolute catastrophe and crisis but until that happens can anyone explain what else is dangerous to life as we know it about increased Co2 levels? Co2 is plant food. Co2 levels are actually near the lowest levels, not the highest, since life has been present on the planet. All indications show that increasing plant food increases plant health and growth. Increased plant growth and health increases the food supply for animals and humans. It appears to be a win win. Can anyone dispute that through an open and honest discussion?
Edit to add:
I just realized that i misinterpreted your question. Unknown to me at the time of posting my response agrees with your post by also questioning the logic of eliminating fossil fuel use. There appear to be both benefits and pitfalls to doing so and I’m not certain that eliminating their use is an over all positive at this point in time.
Edited by havin’funfarming 6/3/2024 10:15
| |
|
Temperature article
