Assuming "Climate Change" is bad, then should we conclude that "Climate Never Changes" is good?

It would certainly be good for all extant species if the climate never changed.

But you have it backwards. A climate that never changes is good… therefore, climate change is bad.

False dichotomy.

It’s like saying “Drinking 5 gallons of water in a sitting is bad, so never drinking water is good.”

The term “Climate Change” as it’s generally used refers to extreme and rapid (in geological years) changes in climate on the order of magnitude of massive extinction events like the meteor that killed the dinosaurs.

You’re equivocating different types of “climate change”.

Today’s climate change is anthropogenic climate change. The natural background variables aren’t changing much at all. Without our input, there would be relatively little change currently. Instead, the CO2 released is changing the climate more rapidly than at any time in thousands of years, and the CO2 is increasing to levels not seen in millions of years.

Past climate changes were from natural variables, such as gradual shifts in the Earth’s axial tilt and orbital eccentricity (these begin and end “ice ages”). The sun used to be a little cooler too. Continents were in different positions, which meant that ocean currents circulated in different patterns. All these things affected the climate.

These ancient changes in the climate weren’t “bad”. We can’t assign “badness” to them, since they were natural, and there were no moral actors responsible for them. They just happened.

We wouldn’t be where we are today without the conditions of the past.

We also wouldn’t be where we are today without the relatively stable and clement climate of the last few thousand years, in which human civilisation has flourushed.

The change in the climate which we are inducing, not only adversely affects biodiversity and ecosystems, but poses an existential risk to our civilisation itself. That is bad.

Anthropogenic climate change is currently bad. There may be some situations in the distant future whereby artificially changing the climate could be good, perhaps if the Earth were returning to a glacial period—this is not going to happen for thousands of years. For the forseeable future, not having anthropgenic climate change would be good.

See how easily your question is resolved when correctly prefixing anthropogenic to “climate change”?

Do you own a fish tank? I don’t either. But I know someone who does. He has a salt water reef tank with coral, crabs, exotic fish, tube worms, hydra, anemone, and I don’t know what else…..

His mantra is: “Fast change is never good.” If he needs to raise salinity, he does it slowly. He raises the temperature slowly. He adjusts aeration slowly. He adjusts current direction and speed slowly.

Change is good, otherwise we stagnate. Just like in humans, slow change is preferable to quick or none.

I think we can conclude that all change is bad.

Just because something isn’t realistic doesn’t mean it isn’t good. If we assume both that climate change is bad and that it is inevitable, then the sensible thing to do is see how we can slow down climate change (which gives us more time to mitigate its effects).

@SavoirFaire need more realistic thing to do is not figure out how we can slow it down but figure out how we can adapt to the coming changes. it cannot be stopped it can only be dealt with.

@rojo That’s what “mitigating its effects” involves. My response already concedes that the change is inevitable, and so my point is entirely focused on how to deal with it. The point of buying ourselves time is to increase our chances of being able to adapt before we reach a crisis point. As such, I don’t see how your response contradicts mine in any way.

@SavoirFaire First, I don’t know how you even understood my response, I myself cannot figure out what I wrote and Mrs Ganner, my 8th grade English teacher would be appalled.

I assume that I focused on your statement that perhaps ” the sensible thing to do is see how we can slow down climate change” .

You are saying let us figure out how to give ourselves more time and I am saying that it is more important for us to start implementing the necessary adaptations now.

We both agree the change is coming and we must adapt, It is just a matter of how and when we need to implement the necessary changes I suppose.

@rojo I read hundreds of papers written by college freshman each semester. Small typos like yours barely faze me anymore! ~

Anyway, I do agree that we need to start implementing changes now. The problem is just this: some of them will take a long time. So if we want to make sure we can finish changing before it stops mattering, some of the changes we implement need to be aimed at slowing the inevitable process. The more time we have to get our adaptations in place, the better.

@SavoirFaire Have you watched the video Chasing Ice? I saw it this evening and was very impressed with the photographic and and cinematographic proof of retreating glacial ice worldwide. It is hard to watch it and not come away believing that the climate is changing. We can argue all day about whether or not man is the main reason, and honestly does it matter, but either way, it does not change the fact that it is happening in our lifetime.

@rojo I haven’t seen that particular video, but I have seen the photographic evidence in it before. Personally, I am of the view that we are way past the point where it is rational to discuss whether or not to “believe in” climate change. We’ve know it is happening for a long time, and the scientific evidence has pointed to it being largely anthropogenic for almost as long. But you’re right: it doesn’t matter. It is happening, and we have to adjust accordingly.

And even if it isn’t happening, it still doesn’t matter.