onlooker wrote:Yes Asg. What ever differences of opinion we may have with Tanada, does not warrant implying that he is a denialist . Since, I have been on this site, I have found T, always relies on the facts as he sees them resulting in a discernable bias.
Fixed that for you. With Tanada, there are places he will not go. The possibility that planetary conditions could become uninhabitable for humans, for instance.
Yes, the paleo-record shows some form of life for much of Earth's history, but they lived under conditions which would have been uninhabitable to humans.
We are already hitting temperatures in some places, that push the boundaries of human habitability.
Our limit is the ability to lose metabolic heat. And if we can't lose it, even if it only happens for a few hours, and at certain times of the year, the place becomes uninhabitable.
It was great that we were able to generate metabolic heat in a cold climate, but it is our fatal flaw when the climate warms up.
Remember, our livestock are in the same predicament as well. All mammals are limited by their ability to lose metabolic heat.
Add to that the loss of surface water due to evaporation. And we have about depleted the aquifers.
And the rain tracks shifting farther north with increasing temperatures.
Also the increasing blood acidosis with higher CO2, which causes detrimental physiological changes trying to cope. (metabolic syndrome)
Predicted temperature rises will take us over those metabolic limits. It will leave us outside our range of habitability. And will last for hundreds of thousands of years.
There is no rule that the climate must remain within our range of habitability, in fact, most of the planet's history was outside that range.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.