Greg was speaking of global warming in toto, the sum of events with a global root cause. Your question is yet another example of the weird sophistry that lets denialists think they’re scoring some sort of important point. It shows a remarkable ineptitude when it comes to logic not to mention reading comprehension. You are exhaustingly tedious. I’m surprised he bothers to respond to you at all.

“Yeah. I know, right?”

I don’t know if you know.
But I think you THINK you know.

So, I’ll ask again:
Greg, what is the ONE GREATEST example of the “globally devastating climate change we are seeing today”?

Yeah. I know, right?

“And indeed, Magna Carta conceives rights in NEGATIVE terms, as GUARANTEES AGAINST STATE COERCION. No one can put you in prison or seize your property or mistreat you other than by due process. This essentially NEGATIVE CONCEPTION OF FREEDOM is WORTH CLINGING TO in an age that likes to redefine rights as entitlements—the right to affordable health care, the right to be forgotten and so on… they saw parliamentary government NOT as an expression of MAJORITY RULE BUT as a GUARANTOR OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/magna-carta-eight-centuries-of-liberty-1432912022

………..
I’m not at all sure how most of Greg’s piece has anything to do with the Magna Carta, but I have a couple observations:

“Then, something like climate change happens. Not the globally devastating climate change we are seeing today, but something likely more regional and not as severe, but that affects everyone’s gardens in roughly the same way. Over here you have famine more often, but over there you have higher productivity many years in a row. Maybe there is a three year long drought that causes mass migration, or maybe there is a summer with out a winter.”

That paragraph seems to describe what man has experienced throughout recorded history. Except for “the globally devastating climate change we are seeing today”.

I don’t know what Greg’s talking about.
Greg, what is the ONE GREATEST globally devastating climate change we are seeing today?

“In any event, the pot is stirred, but when you stir the Stone Soup of society over a large area, you don’t increase homogeneity like when you put all the different stuff in a blender to make a smoothy.”

In the U.S., the metaphor of a “melting pot” is usually used instead of the more modern “blender.” But regardless, although you might put IN to the blender Italian prosciutto, Irish potatoes, African camel’s milk, and Japanese ginseng, you don’t expect to get OUT of the blender those same things. In a very real sense, what results is not Italian or Irish or African or Japanese.

I don’t have a name for the hypothetical recipe above. Perhaps I’d call it “Cut out the hyphenated-American crap.” Or maybe “How about you learn to speak English when you decide to become an American?” Or maybe “Damn the Diversity. Up with Unity.”

Who knows? Maybe it’ll end up in the Betty Crocker Cookbook, just in time for the Fourth of July.

“Instead of the guy in charge (and it will almost always be a guy because men can’t have babies and thus feel the need to take over everybody else’s junk all the time) …”

Remarkable. But I’ll make no remarks about it right now. Instead, I’m just going to give it an instant replay for all to consider. YOU make the call!
“Instead of the guy in charge (and it will almost always be a guy because men can’t have babies and thus feel the need to take over everybody else’s junk all the time) …”

“Instead of the guy in charge… being older and stronger and better connected than the other guys in a village, the guy in charge is the one with an extra 100 horses or a better blade or a clever strategy like stabbing the other guys up close instead of throwing something at them. This is how you get a king.”

Let’s see. That first king might have a bloodless but nevertheless liberty-crushing reign. The second may spill some blood in defense of liberty.
Either way you get a king.

Which king is better?