Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • #46
    Originally posted by Jon Miller
    I also think that there are much worse issues facing us environmentally then global warming. Many people seem to think that if we can fix that, we will be 'saved'.

    JM
    If we CAN'T solve global warming, then we've little hope as a species. Developing the economics of sustainability which make it possible to fix global warming will serve civilization greatly.

    To put it simply - we're using a crummy economic system which is far too short-sighted and ignores all sorts of "externalities", the air pollution problem is much the same as the GHG problem, it's a result of the economic system being short sighted and ignoring externalities. The solution to both is much the same - being more far-sighted and accounting for externalities.

    Comment

    • #47
      Originally posted by Blake


      If we CAN'T solve global warming, then we've little hope as a species. Developing the economics of sustainability which make it possible to fix global warming will serve civilization greatly.

      To put it simply - we're using a crummy economic system which is far too short-sighted and ignores all sorts of "externalities", the air pollution problem is much the same as the GHG problem, it's a result of the economic system being short sighted and ignoring externalities. The solution to both is much the same - being more far-sighted and accounting for externalities.
      This is what it's all about. Left-wing economics failed so they've had to hijack an arts discipline in order to subvert our successful economic system.

      Which, by the way, wouldn't have lasted if it was unsustainable.
      www.my-piano.blogspot

      Comment

      • #48
        Um, that's not what unsustainable means.

        Comment

        • #49
          Originally posted by Blake


          If we CAN'T solve global warming, then we've little hope as a species. Developing the economics of sustainability which make it possible to fix global warming will serve civilization greatly.

          To put it simply - we're using a crummy economic system which is far too short-sighted and ignores all sorts of "externalities", the air pollution problem is much the same as the GHG problem, it's a result of the economic system being short sighted and ignoring externalities. The solution to both is much the same - being more far-sighted and accounting for externalities.
          I don't see why it won't fall into some new equilibrium, with our 'pollution' being part of the 'ecosystem' similar to how nature has dealt with other changes.

          JM
          Jon Miller-
          I AM.CANADIAN
          GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

          Comment

          • #50
            Because that doesn't sound like the sky is falling. Its all about ratings JM.
            "The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.

            Comment

            • #51
              I don't see why it won't fall into some new equilibrium, with our 'pollution' being part of the 'ecosystem' similar to how nature has dealt with other changes.
              I'm not sure how steady states are all that comforting when we're moving to a new one at the current pace. Getting six billion people and growing to cope with the likely changes isn't exactly trivial...
              "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
              -Bokonon

              Comment

              • #52
                Originally posted by Jon Miller


                I don't see why it won't fall into some new equilibrium, with our 'pollution' being part of the 'ecosystem' similar to how nature has dealt with other changes.

                JM
                What equilibrium ? Climate has never been in some kind of equilibrium - it has changed and killed of species and at the same time given place for others.
                With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                Steven Weinberg

                Comment

                • #53
                  Originally posted by Jon Miller


                  Easy.

                  Water pollution and misuse.

                  JM
                  Water quality in the US has been improving for decades, we keep setting the bar higher. As far as health or economic impacts, let alone impacts on species, etc, I think its dwarfed by Global warming. Note, I said here in developed countries.
                  "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Patroklos
                    Because that doesn't sound like the sky is falling. Its all about ratings JM.

                    quantify the sky is falling. I dont quite agree with Blake that our species survival is endangered. But I think the most likely case for temp change, and indeed even the lower end case, are substantial, and that the economic and social impacts are likely to be substantially negative.

                    The sky is falling crowd, IMO, have actually been harmful, as they tend to provide ammo to the deniers and minimizers.
                    "A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      The sky is falling crowd, IMO, have actually been harmful, as they tend to provide ammo to the deniers and minimizers.
                      They reveal the lunatic streak in GWers
                      A ship at sea is its own world. To be the captain of a ship is to be the unquestioned ruler of that world and requires all of the leadership skills of a prince or minister.

                      Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing and dancing, sooner than war

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Slade Wilson


                        They reveal the lunatic streak in GWers
                        New blood



                        anyway, GW is a fact, problem is that the reason isn't established.
                        With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                        Steven Weinberg

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Master Zen


                          I'll be willing to bet that it does but regardless of that, if smoking does cause cancer then it IS a problem. Your logic is akin to saying that war causes death but death occurrs absent war, and since most deaths are not caused by war, then war really isn't that big a deal.

                          Lets run with that analogy for a second-- While I would agree that war is something to be avoided, it is such a small contributor on a magnitude scale to the occurence of "death" that its almost insignificant in any statistical sense as a major cause of death

                          Put simply-- Can you point at any year in the last 50 where war rose to be the cause of even 1% of deaths worldwide?
                          You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Master Zen

                            That just seems like a convenient minimization of a serious issue.
                            You obviously did not read my other posts as I am quite clearly NOT unconcerned by emissions generally. Simply put :

                            1. I am sick of every localized weather phenomenon that deviates from the average being trumpeted as proof of something (this goes for both sides)

                            2. I really do wonder how much we know about our climate. Projections seem all over the place and people seemto forget that the earth has been much warmer AND much colder than it is now within the last couple of million years with no human GHG .

                            3. I believe we should be cutting emissions generally as part of a large scale effort to reduce consumption. Blaming an oil company or power company seems idiotic as we hop in our SUV or overpackage things to extreme degrees.

                            4. My fear is that issues such as acid rain, air pollution and air quality and water quality tend to get lost.

                            5. JM hit a key issue when he mentioned water use and misuse. Even if we regulate emissions and have reasonable quality water, thirsty dry places are already facing water availability issues that will not go away . (GW can lessen or increase the problem depending of the specifics of an area
                            You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BlackCat


                              What equilibrium ? Climate has never been in some kind of equilibrium - it has changed and killed of species and at the same time given place for others.
                              The only worrying thing for me is rapid climate change. WE can probably cope with quite significant change over a period of centuries. BUt the same change over periods of years or even a couple of decades could be more disruptive.

                              THis worry would occurr even if all the change were naturally occurring
                              You don't get to 300 losses without being a pretty exceptional goaltender.-- Ben Kenobi speaking of Roberto Luongo

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Berzerker

                                the ice age is coming...THE ICE AGE IS COMING
                                not for another 10,000 years. I'm sure we'll be technologically advanced enough to control the climate by then.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
                                Working...
                                X