Global Warming vs. Terrorism

It's a difference in quality that counts. Where one is caused by something unthinking, primeordeal and utterly destructive natural phenomenon, the other is nothing less then murder. LArge scale murder. [..] NAtural disasters are tragic of course, but large scale murder due to terrorism is outrigh horrible.

najmelliw wrote:

It's a difference in quality that counts. Where one is caused by something unthinking, primeordeal and utterly destructive natural phenomenon, the other is nothing less then murder. LArge scale murder. [..] NAtural disasters are tragic of course, but large scale murder due to terrorism is outrigh horrible.

I dunno, Naj.

I mean, I understand what you're saying, of course. Politically speaking, too, a large-scale terrorist attack of course has far more impact than a natural disaster, it is more likely to "change everything" beyond the area of impact, as well. And I, too, know this feeling of resignation bordering on indifference about natural disasters "just happening"; "nothing much you can do about it".

But I'd put two thoughts against or next to that.

One: compare the number of victims if a hurricane hits the US and if one hits Bangladesh. Or compare even the impact of a tsunami where a tsunami warning system is in place, and where there isn't. The number of victims, the scope of suffering, is not something that is as determined by the irrational ferocity of nature as we instinctively feel it is, looking at the destruction.

We humans and the actions we can undertake can have a drastic impact on how much life and suffering is taken by a disaster. Investing in defences against potential disasters pays off hugely in terms of preventing thousands of deaths - and ultimately, of course, human development is the best defence. People who live in solidly constructed houses rather than ramshackle shantytown huts are more likely to survive.

Which brings me to #2: this feeling of the tsunami, or an earthquake, or whatever, being "tragic" but only something like 9/11 being truly "horrible" might very much be one that comes with the relatively privileged perspective of someone in the prosperous West. Of course, metaphysically speaking you're right: there's an essential difference between human evil and the indifference of nature's cruelty. But that, too, might be a difference one only gets round to giving much thought if you're mostly sheltered from the latter anyway.

In fact, in response to 9/11 we've also seen the other side. While Americans and many in the West wailed about the unprecedented horror that would leave the world changed for ever, people in Third World countries who face the terror of civil war or hunger on a day-to-day basis were relatively more agnostic about it. Terrible, of course; something to sincerely commiserate with as it occurs, as was done. But not something that "changes the world forever"; rather, the kind of wanton death that they've seen around them one way or another in any case.

The difference in perspective emerges when the issue moves to politics, and the US and some West-European governments push the War on Terror as the one, single, all-overriding priority in the world today. For governments who face longstanding civil conflicts that have taken a multiple of 3,000 victims over the years, for countries where hunger or AIDS take out a multiple of 3,000 every year, the priority just doesnt seem so singular. In fact, the War on Terror may look as rather an abstract concept in comparison with, say, the tsunami aftermath.

Thus, for those living in South-Asia, I'm sure, it is an event like 9/11 that may be "tragic of course", but the far larger natural devastation and subsequent day-to-day struggle for survival of hundreds of thousands that "is outright horrible".

That's entirely correct. I am not stating there is nothing we can do to minimize impact. I'm stating that there is little we can do to combat the disaster itself. We cannot stop floods or divert hurricanes.

Shantytowns are of course more fragile then the style of building most people in the West are used to. One question we can ask ourselves is how those shantytowns, housing thousands of utterly poor people, came into being in such areas anyways. We in the west have a penchant for sending help when the disaster has struck, but such large scale areas of poverty are perhaps a disaster all by themselves, and one we in the West can certainly feel partially responsible for.

Bravo, Mr. Finn. I know a good deal about the alleged global warming but you have put the matter to rest. I would like, however, to add one item--According to studies done on the future effects of global warming( assuming that the warming is as severe as the IPCC has said--a prediction which is in great peril of being drastically modified if not overturned--) it will be very costly to do nothing about global warming BUT IT WILL BE ALMOST AS COSTLY TO COPE WITH IT.

Mr. O'Donnell- That's a fascinating thesis.

Would that have also fostered Terrorism. Surely, you are aware that temperature changes are not always deleterious. In the Medieval Warm Period, the Vikings were able to farm Greenland and Iceland and the English grew grapes that rivaled French production.

I respectfully suggest that you read up on the alleged global warming!

Mr. O'Donnell says: "All changes are deleterious"

Really? When a child grows into adulthood, that is a "change"
. I do not know how it would be considered to be deleterious.

Wolf O'Donnell wrote:

The concentration of Carbon Dioxide has reached 380 parts per million, which is 100 ppm above the agricultural revolution you referred to. We have never reached 350.

Mr. O'Donnell does not give a source for his information but I am very familiar with his figures and can say that, indeed, CO2 has reached 350 BUT THE IMPORTANT ASSUMPTION THAT MR. O'DONNELL MAKES IS THAT IT IS THE CO2 WHICH IS CAUSING THE GLOBAL WARMING.

There is no doubt that the temperature of the late twentieth century is greater than many previous century, but THIS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A SIMPLE INDICATION OF OVERWHELMING GLOBAL WARMING as we are also coming out of a "Little Ice Age". The claim that the temperature is higher now than at any time throughout the past 1000 years seems less well substantiated, as the data ESSENTIALLY EXCLUDE OCEAN TEMPERATURES,NIGHT TEMPERATURES AND WINTER TEMPERATURES AND MOREOVER ARE BASED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY ON NORTH AMERICAN DATA."

I would respectfully ask Mr.O'Donnell to learn just how much I have read by raising an issue in the "global warming" controversy.

Tthat the fear that the world will end in the next twenty years because of CO2 in the atmosphere is ABSURD!!!

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?

I

My comment about the cost of the possible reduction is based on a quite reputable professors of Economics and model builder, William Nordhaus of Yale University, who, of course, Mr. Plain Ol Me is invited to check out.

"