The point is, most of the time we have no idea what will happen after we do X. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Australians, up to their didgeridoos in rabbits, had seriously considered introducing larger predators – maybe the Tasmanian Devil – to control the rabbits.

Chris, I hate to break it to you, but we ARE nature. Part of it anyway. All flora and fauna affect their sphere of influence in the natural world. As top dog, we have a larger influence. Go figure. If we do something which ‘imbalances’ things a bit, mother nature will do what she does (smack us) and we’ll do what we’ve always done (adapt).

It’s funny how, if man brings a plant into a new habitat, we’re screwing up nature. If a plant is brought into a new habitat by way of bird droppings, it’s nature. More successful plants will dominate, and less successful ones will lose ground. That is how it always has been, and always will be, perhaps excepting our peculiar desire to preserve specimens of weaker species for our diversion. Why is saving the California Condor, or the Panda bear not interfering in Nature? Hasn’t anyone considered what might happen if we sustain species that should go extinct? Where did this notion of a static nature come from?

Parallel to the story that inspired this post, a couple of decades ago, there was a big move to shut down trawling near the sea lion rookeries around the Bering sea, “because there was a fear that fishing was behind the sea lion decline. But there was never any data and still isn’t any evidence that links the two. We therefore need to go the next step and re-open fishing in a few areas, but not in others, and then compare what happens. We need to think about this as a carefully controlled experiment and an opportunity to learn once and for all whether fishing has an effect on Steller’s sea lions. Just because sea lions and fisheries target the same species, doesn’t necessarily mean that they compete with each other. It is like two people who breathe the same air in a room. They do not compete with each other unless the room is sealed and their supply of oxygen is limited. “

We stopped fishing of pollock in many areas, they thrived, pushing numbers of herring and other species down, and it turns out that pollock may not be very good food for sea lions, particularly young sea lions. Had we continued fishing pollock, perhaps that wouldn’t have happened. Who knows. I’ll not be one so arrogant as to claim I understand nature so well.

When they can accurately predict where a hurricane is going 7 days out, I will be happy.

They think they can predict the weather 100 years from now? Right.

Unfortunately, the true-believers are presenting global warming to the public, government and industry as if we do fully understand every possible consequence, and as if, far from merely suspecting that human activities are negative, we are absolutely certain that they are. I don’t believe any responsible scientist would go that route.

I agree we should protect the environment, take measures to reduce pollution, etc. But the desperate, certain-doom millennialism that characterizes today’s environmentalists raises questions in my mind about their sanity.

You’ll notice, however, that CW is unable to take issue with a single one of the five successive sources of uncertainty regarding the issue of global warming I mentioned above, which makes this quote simply disingenuous. Like any troll, when confronted with something he can’t answer, he just waits for awhile and then says the same nonsense again, as if hoping to win the point by repetition. But the answer can be repeated too: in summary, it’s that the significant remaining uncertainties surrounding the phenomenon itself, the much greater uncertainties regarding its costs and benefits, the uncertainties re: the costs and effectiveness of the proposed cure, and particularly the huge uncertainty engendered by the very long time frame involved, all make that proposed “cure” so speculative and dubious as to be politically and ideologically suspect, with the single most likely result being a ruined global economy. People like CW can repeat themselves forever, of course, but all they’re doing is repeatedly missing the point.

Calling .076% ‘massive’ is not a nit-pick. It’s a lie.

Global Warmism is promoted by lies, supported by lies, introduced by a vanguard of lies, protected by a bulwark of lies and spread by lying.

At least you admitted it, but then your tried to go back and claim your ficticious figures are ‘massive’, so no credit, liar.

Gray — I freely admit that, in the heat of the moment, I plugged in arbitrary and hyperbolic numbers rather than researching the exact figures for gallons of oil extracted, acres paved, and so on. Rather than taking the real point – which was to note that we humans are, and have been for our entire existence as a species, engaged in “intervening to change nature”, often in massive ways — you want to pick nits about the number of acres paved.

Ymasakar – What is “objective standards for ethical ramifications” supposed to mean? Can you cite the data that objectively shows, for example, that punishing adultery by flogging is an overall ethical evil due to these “objective standards for ethical ramifications”? You can make the case that flogging is a greater evil, and if you do, I can agree with you, but our positions would be equally subjective. We would have little in the way of objective proofs to offer if confronted by a religious fundamentalist arguing that adultery requires the punishment of flogging. On the other hand, as Gray points out, it is entirely possible to have objective facts regarding how many tons of CO2 are released by coal burning power plants each year within a modest and known margin of error.

Neo’s post offers a wonderful example of the way in which even small interventions can have large effects on natural systems, a point I strongly agree with. She then uses this as a cautionary tale to suggest that the complexity of nature makes it foolish and even impossible to predict outcomes. She then continues further to use this idea to argue against efforts to roll back our contribution to global warming. What I have difficulty with is the idea that our limited ability to fully understand every possible consequence of an action we might make that affects nature means we shouldn’t bother to attempt to understand what those effects are, nor should we attempt to moderate them if we begin to suspect they are negative.

When, for example, we began to understand the implications of heavy metal poisoning on living beings we began to ban lead from paints and toys, despite any negative impacts this may have had or, in light of recent recalls of Chinese made toys, continues to have on national and global economies. Why shouldn’t we take the position that the market will self correct for this situation, if enough kids begin to suffer from heavy metal poisoning it will drive those companies who use lead out of business and the problem will go away, right? Or maybe we just need to adapt ourselves to the ways in which lead poisons us.

Chris believes that it is not only possible that he can know the objective state of things but that he does know them. Contrast this with the disbelief described by Chris over objective standards for ethical ramifications. I suppose once you get past the need to hold oneself accountable for actions and beliefs proposed, you can believe any prediction of any effect on the world.

In nature, be careful what you wish for, and be careful how you intervene.

After all, care is for lazy farmers and school drop outs that have to go to Iraq. Care is not a requirement for those born to rule on the Left.

When there are no ethical standards that applies to me as well as to everyone, you are free to care about nothing and anything. Actions no longer have a moral responsibility attached to it. It is simply intellectual whimsy. Requiring about as much accuracy and accountability as choosing post cards.

The earth could go up in smoke, ash, and fire. Who can say that Chris helped bring that about without objective ethical standards?

That’s a great point Sergey. Since our models of highly complex systems like The Climate are so accurate, we can predict the stock market. Right? Right?