Claim: Climate Driven Human Extinction “in the coming decades or sooner”

Earthling2

And with 280ppm atmospheric CO2 at the beginning of the industrial revolution we were perilously close to mass extinction from falling CO2. IF man made atmospheric CO2 causes any significant warming, the future is unknown.

That is, anything much past the medieval warm period where humanity flourished and every meaningful cathedral in the UK was built, because crops were so abundant that people could enjoy gainful employment building them, rather than spending a lifetime grubbing around for morsels of food. This a matter of irrefutable, historical fact; not climate modelling fantasy or navel gazing speculation.

And whether it was a global phenomenon or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact is, in a particular identifiable region, at a given moment in time, humankind not only survived warmer temperatures, they benefited and flourished. Proof positive that warming to at least those temperatures is something to welcome.

But what about rising sea levels!!!!???? So the hysterical cry goes. SLR really only threatens the hugely profitable, urban environments, built on low lying coastal land and estuaries like London, New York and, of course, Miami. For enjoying the benefits of occupying these areas, eventually, the piper must be paid.

But it’s not like SLR will arrive in one devastating tsunami, it will, as with most earth processes, be gradual. Eventually the House of Parliament and the Empire State Building will be uninhabitable, by which time, the occupants will have moved to higher ground, perhaps several hundred thousand years from being threatened by SLR again. Settlements have always been temporary throughout man’s history. We are by nature a nomadic, tribal species, very well adapted to seeking out conditions conducive to our survival.

In the meantime, the vast area of Canada may prove warm enough to support growing periods associated with more southerly climes. We might lose some areas of equatorial agricultural land,but even that’s doubtful as increased atmospheric CO2 increases plants resistance to drought. And the tried and tested, ancient practise of irrigation will be available, especially if, as is predicted by the alarmists, there will be more precipitation and a moister climate.

Nor have I mentioned the Arctic Tundra, reaching down well into Russia which, if the perma frost melts, will release billions of acres of land to agriculture.

As I understand it, doubling of CO2 is a logarithmic phenomenon, so even if atmospheric CO2 is the main cause of planetary heating, it seems it can only get so warm before CO2 becomes entirely irrelevant. Meanwhile, plant life flourishes in CO2 rich environments three or four times what is present in our atmosphere right now.

The planet will change, and is far more adaptable than humans, who are themselves, very adaptable.

Perhaps a simplistic layman’s analysis, but this is the overall perspective I have gained from years of reading WUWT, Paul Homewood’s excellent notalotofpeopleknowthat and many other climate sites. There will, of course, be quirks, loss of life and unexpected crisis, but no worse than we have endured with warring nations and the threat of nuclear Armageddon. Which in itself amuses me as I understand a single hurricane expends the energy of 10,000 nuclear warheads in a matter of minutes. And we had, what, three major Atlantic hurricanes in 2017, but were are, by and large, all still standing. Next year there will be three more, and the year after that, more, but we’ll still be standing.

And people wonder why I believe AGW is a hoax, perhaps an unintentional hoax, but a hoax nonetheless.