Climate Change Outcomes Chart

Anyone with a brain can see that climate change is a reality.<br />
<br />
What we differ on is the cause.<br />
<br />
I say it's the sun, which has increased it's energy output by .05% per decade since the 1970's. And it could have been going on for some decades prior as well.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html">http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html</a><br />
<br />
Also, the current falacy dictates a steady state climate, something that has NEVER been the case for this planet.<br />
<br />
You want to ignore an increase of .2% in the output of the sun, fine do it.<br />
<br />
Just don't bother saying that your position is based on anything approaching a careful consideration of the facts, because when the sun heats up so does EVERYTHING else in the solar system.<br />
<br />
If understanding of that fact eludes you, then don't inflict your "most terrifying video" claptrap on me or anyone else.<br />
<br />
Unless, of course, you in your infinite godlike wisdom can conjur up some means of controlling the sun.<br />
<br />
<p>---<br>If George W. Bush and Tony Blair are really Christians, then pork and shrimp are Kosher.

Thank you for that clarification. Clearly an important factor.<p> <b>“The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson.”</b><br> ... from: <br> <a href="http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html"> Deacon’s reference (above)</a> <p> “Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, <b>is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more.”</b><BR> ... from the <a href="http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/"> original NASA press release </a> <p> The following excerpts can be found from <a href="http://www.acrim.com/Solar%20Variability%20and%20Climate.htm"> NASA’s ACRIM site </a>. <p> <b>We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming.</b> These results, while confirming that anthropogenic-added climate forcing might have progressively played a dominant role in climate change during the last century, also suggest that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted. ......FROM: Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900 - 2000 global surface warming (Scafetta & West - 2006) <p> We study the solar impact on 400 years of a global surface temperature record since 1600. ... <b>We find good correspondence between global temperature and solar induced temperature curves during the pre-industrial period</b> ... ......FROM: Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record (Scafetta & West - 2006)

Let’s try a different approach, one that gets rid of the argument about whether or not climate change is a reality.

Let’s assume, as Deacon does, that climate change is a given which means we have to re-label the “logic” box to read: on the Action or X axis “Yes” or “No” (not different from the original), and make the Y axis the Cause of climate change axis with Man Made MM in one row and Not Man Made NMM in the other.

Now, the outcome in two of the four boxes is somewhat different than the original argument. If CC is MM and we decide “Yes”, to take action, humanity will probably be better off in the long run. If CC is MM and we decide “No’, don’t take action, we will witness a steady deterioration in living conditions, possibly leading to all of the calamities discussed in the Video.
If CC is NMM (possibly due to changes in solar activity) and we decide “Yes”, to take action, this action can only be directed at mitigating out comes (i.e. reducing pain and suffering, and helping make life liveable).
If CC is NMM and we decide “No”, don’t take action, we will witness a steady change in living conditions, which may include increased pain and suffering, possibly leading to all of the calamities discussed in the Video.

The only way we won’t witness increased pain and suffering is if the climate change, we are presently witnessing, is extremely short lived (something we have no way of knowing).

So, if the scenario just described bears any relationship to reality, we really don’t have a choice, unless of course we don’t have a brain. In which case it really doesn’t matter.