Balance of nature: human implications (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, January 13, 2025, 19:29 (9 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: All damage is “local”, in the sense that floods, fires, droughts, storms, hurricanes etc. occur in different places at different times. The increasing degree to which these “local” catastrophes are taking place (we are all currently shuddering at the horror of Los Angeles) is believed to be caused largely by global warming, which in turn many experts consider to be caused by such human-related factors as fossil fuels, deforestation, means of transport and food production.

DAVID: This is the parroted propaganda we are fed and supposed to accept. The California fires have many local causes. Lack of cleaning out brush near homes, poor forest management, poor water reservoir management with water kept at low levels, etc. The local geography creates the Santa Ana winds, and cannot be changed. Global warming is not related in any way.

I was responding to your two points above: ALL damage is local (e.g. the Los Angeles fires) and the use of the word “catastrophic” is not hype (e.g. the Los Angeles fires). I mentioned them only because they are current. I don’t know enough about them to pinpoint the direct causes, and you may well be right. But that does not invalidate the argument that the increase in such “local” catastrophes has been caused largely by the factors I have listed above, all of which contribute towards global warming. Do you agree, or not?

I have bolded the propaganda in your first entry above. In fact there are less environmental storms, as one example, all exhibited in Watt's site. Studying one interview is an incomplete view of current disputes on his site.

dhw: The Paris Agreement was that all countries should make every effort to reduce temperatures by cutting back on all the above activities. This would entail nothing less than a revolution in the way we all live. Perhaps understandably, many governments are not prepared to countenance such changes. The problem, however, is not solved by arguing over what is or isn’t a “catastrophe”.

DAVID: Does a problem really exist?

dhw: Both you and Watts apparently agree that it does. I quoted an interview with him on YouTube:

DAVID: Why not look at the current Watts site directly and avoid YouTube slant?

dhw: No need, since you agree with my summary of his views, as expressed in the interview:

One interview is quite incomplete. Don't be lazy. Review the site daily.

dhw: He accepts that global warming is a fact, but believes its extent is exaggerated, and questions methods of measuring. The interviewer asks whether we should ignore the problem, and Watts hesitates before answering that we should not be in such a hurry (because of the chaos a quick solution would cause), but instead should take our time in developing new technologies. He likes to think of himself as a “pragmatic” sceptic, and I’d say it’s clear that a “pragmatic” approach is the only one possible. His overall response, then, is emphatically NOT a denial that the climate is changing, but the emphasis lies on the speed of our response to the problem, not on the existence of the problem itself.

DAVID: Very fair analysis of Watt.

dhw; Thank you.

DAVID: Yes, we are currently warming […]

dhw: You agree that we are currently warming. Does Watts now disagree with you? If he does, he is certainly in a minority among "experts". I have just listed the human factors which cause warming (“impinge on” would imply that they reduce warming). Has Watts now reversed his view that it is happening and we need to take pragmatic steps to stop it? I can’t find any updated interview.

DAVID: On his site there is no change. Warming is recognized.

dhw: Thank you again.

DAVID: (under “The water cycle”): How we treat the land and its plants has an direct effect on the water cycle. It is important for us to understand those effects and be sure they are not detrimental.

dhw: That is the key to this whole discussion. We are currently in the process of destroying the balance of nature, and unless we change our activities, the results will be “catastrophic”.

DAVID: "Catastrophic" is an uncertain prediction.

dhw: Since you and Watts agree that global warming is a fact, that temperatures are now rising more rapidly than ever, that humans are currently destroying the “balance of nature” and we should take steps to stop this destruction, I would suggest that a definition of “catastrophic” is the least of our problems.

A giant piece of misinformation. We are not destroying the balance of nature. The warming is an advantage for agriculture!!