Global Warming vs. Terrorism

I can always count on Finn. (I mean that as a compliment.)

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

For all you tree-huggers who would argue otherwise, think on this: The ultimate terrorist attack involves WMDs - nuclear, chemical, or biological. Is it simply a matter of time?

Is it? Is the threat from terrorism or is the threat from weapons of mass destruction? Let's say that terrorists did attack a US city with WMD. Then what? A global war with us retaliating against any country that could have provided them with the WMD. That seems to me to be the same threat as in the cold war, which is just the threat of the existence of weapons with the capability to destroy human life on the planet.

First of all, we should not sneeze at the ecological impact of a terrorist WMD attack (irrespective of the response it engenders). That tree-huggers should not goes without saying since they are wont to warn us that the extinction of a species of tiny fish (snail darter) is an ecological tragedy. Of course the average tree-hugger tends to fall prey to the same arrogance of those who they attack - namely the belief that mankind is somehow removed from earth's ecological system. In other words, there are, undoubtedly, any number of tree-huggers who would not find the release of the small pox virus an ecological disaster, and some who would not consider it a disaster at all.

Presumably the extinction of any species is, to a tree-hugger, a tragedy, even if that species is homo sapien. Now of course without the mad monkey-boys we like to call humans, Mother Gaia may find it possible to return to a state of ecological perfection, but is it really OK for humans to die out while it ain't OK for snail darters to meet such an end?

Quote:

Global climate change has happened before and the world (clearly) and mankind has survived.

And mankind would also survive terrorist attacks.

Probably, but perhaps not. Humanity is not immune to extinction. Gradual climatological changes pose no threat of human extinction. Terrorist attacks do not pose a significant threat of extinction, but it is far more likely that the deliberate release of a super-virus will result in the end of homo sapiens, than will the rise of the ocean by 20 to 50 feet. Bye bye seaport cities everywhere, but mankind will do just fine in the Heartland, the Steppes and within the rainforests.

Quote:

True to form, we will not react to a situation until it becomes a crisis, but it is highly unlikely that there will be sudden effects of global climate change that will not meet a tardy but, essentially, effective human response.

Well, here's the thing. I admit my ignorance as to what the full array of possibilities are, but it seems plausible that we could reach a point of no return. A point where the ice caps have melted to such an extent that suddenly cutting emissions is useless.

Geologically speaking there is really no such thing as a "point of no return." The Sahara Desert region was once a paradise. Tectonic plates shifted, mountain ranges rose and a desert was born. Tectonic plates continue to shift and no mountain range is eternal. Someday the Sahara may again be Eden.

Let's, for argument sake, assume that "global warming" will result in a significant rise in the level of our oceans.

First of all, it would be ridiculous to assume that such a change was permanent. It's unlikely that humans could within the next 50 years reverse such a geological shift, but it is not beyond the realm of reason to imagine that 100 years from now our scientific and technological advancements might find us in a position where we could manipulate our ecology. Have you read anything about the upcoming Singularity?

Even if mankind could never reverse the rise in oceanic levels, and the earth chose never to do so, mankind could very happily survive, and in close keeping with current cultural manifestations.

All that seaport cities hold for humanity (and this is quite a lot) can be moved to dry land within a mere handful of years. The effects of "global warming" are not going to come upon us in a matter of weeks or months.Should it be inevitable that New York will fall below the sea, we will have years to react.

On the other hand, should a Mad Mullah detonate a nuclear device within the heart of NYC, the cultural losses (not to mention the losses of life) will be irretrievable.

Quote:

Terrorism in its ultimate extreme has the potential for ridding us of our concerns about global climate change (If we believe such changes are human induced).

And vice versa, I'm afraid.

No, not at all. The most pessimistic (yet rational) assessment of the impact of global warming does not encompass immediate world-wide catastrophes. The Day After Tomorrow is a fantasy, and even in this fantasy America, not to mention mankind, endures.

This is not to argue that terrorism will result in The End of Days, but taken to its extreme it is far more likely to set off a chain reaction of destabilizing events than anything global warming can toss at us.

Quote:

Terrorism, rather than global climate change has the potential for retrogressing, or destroying human civilization. The New Caliphate will almost certainly impose reactionary forces upon our civilization and thus give, at least some breathing room to Gaia.

Within the next twenty years, which is more likely to cause your death or the deaths of your loved ones: Terrorism or global climate change.

I don't know that answer. Has anyone ever measured the probability of either? If I lived in New Orleans or on the island of Tuvalu, I might think the latter is more likely. If I lived in NY city or Israel, I might believe it's the former. Even though we call terrorism a global problem (which it is in as much as violence is a globally human problem), the threat is largely localized.

And so is the threat of global warming. Global warming is not going to result in the transformation of every square mile on earth to desert.

It is simply ignorant to uncategorical associate increased hurricane activity with human induced global warming. Hurricane activity is cyclical. With or without humans scurrying around the planet, hurricane activity will ebb and flow.

This is not, at all, to say that global warming doesn't present a threat to our way of life. Whether or not it is being caused by humans or is a natural circumstance, it will result in circumstance that will impact our civilization.

It is a simple fact, however, that the problem which one can see coming is easier to deal with than the one that surprises one in an instant.

If terrorism is a crime, it seems ludicrous to think that crime will destroy human civilization. If it is an act of war, it defies recent history to believe that war will destroy human civilization (on a global scale, anyway, it's pretty effective at the local level). However, major changes to our life support system, the very thing that makes life possible, could do the trick IMO.

What does it matter whether we label the release of a virulent strain of ebola or the detonation of a nuclear bomb in Piccadilly Square a crime or war?

The issue is the scale of destruction possible through an act of terrorism.

From a relative standpoint, 9/11 was not that much of a human catastrophe. Less than 3,000 people perished. A horrific event, yes, but moderate (if not minor) in comparison to other human catastrophes. Look what ensued from 9/11: Short term a tremendous blow to the American economy, the economy that is the core of the world's economy. Longer term the militarization of the world's lone Super Power.

Imagine a nuclear device being detonated in Times Square.

Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people will die.

Irreplaceable cultural treasures will be vaporized.

The American, and the world economy will tank.

America will certainly respond with warfare, and quite possibly nuclear warfare.

Compare this to a reality where the government tells New York City it has ten years to move to higher ground.

Neither possibility is something to hope for, but it is clear that one (terrorism) rather than the other (global warming) presents a greater threat to America and human civilization.

This is not to say that attention to one precludes attention to the other. This posting has created the sort of false either or choice that is amusing to discuss, but not likely to trouble anyone in power.

Global Warming, as a threat to mankind is being hyped far beyond it's actual capability. The reasons for this are many, but the main ones are political. It has become something of a litmus test for people.

The direct actions of humans as opposed to the indirect effect of their actions present the far greater threat to our civilization.

Besides, FreeDuck, I am sure you know that those who control the terms of an argument always win. Your questions were a set-up!

I have the following questions.

1) Which would you support in response to the threat of terrorism if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

yes a) Gun control laws.
depends on the extent b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
yes c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
no d) Expanded presidential powers.
depends on the extent e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

2) Which would you support in response to the threat of global climate change if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

yes (tho how it'd help's a mystery to me) a) Gun control laws.
depends on the extent b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
yes c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
no d) Expanded presidential powers.
depends on the extent e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

3) Lastly, which is the greater threat to the world and our nation: global climate change, or terrorism?

I'd just like to point out that Global Warming may end up fueling terrorism.

If the Global Warming continues, the climate in Africa and developing countries will get drier. Monsoons will fail in countries dependent on it. Agriculture will fail, poverty increases etc. etc.

I have the following questions.

1) Which would you support in response to the threat of terrorism if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

2) Which would you support in response to the threat of global climate change if they were deemed by the government to be effective?

a) Gun control laws.
b) Enhanced law enforcement powers at the expense of civil liberties.
c) Tougher regulation on businesses.
d) Expanded presidential powers.
e) Expanded federal government control of state and local resources.

3) Lastly, which is the greater threat to the world and our nation: global climate change, or terrorism?

Not to want to seem heartless, but:
9/11 2001: 3,000 dead
2004 tsunami: 230,000 dead.

nimh wrote:

Not to want to seem heartless, but:
9/11 2001: 3,000 dead
2004 tsunami: 230,000 dead.

Not to want to seem a smartass, but: What did the 2004 tsunami have to do with global warming? It was caused by an earthquake.

1. Even the worst terrorist attack killed only a fraction of the deaths that any major natural disaster wrecks.

2. Ergo, even if climate change would cause a couple of natural disasters extra - ever; forget the "a year" bit I added there - it would instantly whack out the balance.