Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
Parasites tend to be pretty good about not killing their hosts though, most do this through "deliberately" sabotaging their reproductive success. If you look at the life cycles of certain parasites, they can be downright contrived. If parasites could reproduce inside their primary host they would quickly kill the host and hence end their genetic linage, hence the only parasites which survive are ones with contrived life cycles.

Cancer does destroy it's host, cancer is something which expands beyond reason, self-propagation being an ends upon itself, the expansion disregards well-being of the organism and host.

Humans aren't likely to kill their host either. We are far more likely to change it in a way that saddens us for sentimental reasons and that makes our existence more difficult and complicated to sustain.

Furthermore humans are very very adaptable. Cancers can only adapt to short term conditions and therefore cannot modify the host to achieve mutual sustainability. Parasites can only adapt to long term changes and have little to no short term adaptability.

Both comparisons are horrible.

[Blake]

Okay, imagine the technology is developed to make completely self-contained human habitats which grow enough food to sustain humans in a minimum of 3-diminisional space. Using fusion power the entire surface of the world is plastered in human habitats, every inch with maximum density of human population.

Okay, so in that case, humanity has done a beautiful job of expanding and adapting far beyond their evolutionary parameters. But is such expansion justified?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
Okay, imagine the technology is developed to make completely self-contained human habitats which grow enough food to sustain humans in a minimum of 3-diminisional space. Using fusion power the entire surface of the world is plastered in human habitats, every inch with maximum density of human population.

Okay, so in that case, humanity has done a beautiful job of expanding and adapting far beyond their evolutionary parameters. But is such expansion justified?

Hell yes.

But knowing what I know about humans I think it would behoove them to try to have their cake and eat it too if they ever achieved such capabilities. I think people would be much happier in such circumstances if that technology were used to remove the entire population from the earth (to space or a terraformed planet). The earth could be left as a vast nature preserve to visited to a limited degree but otherwise allowed to preserve something that's of enormous sentimental value to most humans.

[Blake]

That is it's only value? Sentimental value?

[Berzerker]

What a beautiful theory. There's only one problem. There's a cancerous plague of mammels on earth which kills off forest and such a lot quicker than it can grow.

The ocean is the biggest carbon sink and plants are 2nd, and greater rainfall totals from increased evaporation will produce more vegetation and more arable land. Think of how much land was suitable during the last ice advance with today, a warmer world would have even more land opened up for use. Frozen tundra dont trap much carbon...

If FOX says so!

Then we can completely forget that the NW-passage has become completely ice-free for the first time, and the NSIDC data showing a considerable retreat of polar ice shelf, expecting an ice-free ocean by 2030.

Better point, why dont the other more Gore friendly news outlets not reporting what the Brazilians are saying? From your link

The Northwest Passage has re-frozen

After several weeks of nearly ice-free conditions in August and throughout September, the channels of the Northwest Passage now have sections covered with newly formed ice. Though some portions of the channels appear to still be fairly free of ice, all possible routes would now require ice-hardened vessels or icebreakers to transit.

Thats your link, Bud The Brazilian report is recent, yours is from Summer and Fall.

Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff."

Thats a misleading statement, summer ends and fall begins on that day, the northern hemisphere was not tilting away from the Sun and even northern climes were still warm from the passing summer temps.

So judging from this thread everyone can either believe the pro or the con GW side, incl. shouting at the other side for getting it wrong, proving it by articles that support the side one has chosen to believe? Sounds like basic poly stuff

I dont care one way or the other, although I'm hoping we can "terraform" ourselves a warmer world before that next ice advance.

... Except for the ocean, where higher temperatures equal reduced capacity for dissolved gasses (CO2 and O2) necessary for marine life?

Do we have evidence of mass extinctions during recent warming trends? Increased evaporation means increased rainfall which means more atmospheric gases introduced into the hydro cycle.

The problem has never been about actual climate change - everyone is quite aware this happens naturally thank you very much - but rather about the rate of change, and our human ability to deal with that change.

You think the climate change we're seeing is bad? Look at people living during the mini ice age...

[Berzerker]

Vesayen

The world is not a designed entity, it does not have "designed" saftey measures, the fact that it does have some flexibility, is a coincodence. We can easily overwhelm that flexibility.

With a little CO2? C'mon, plants love it! In the past when the continents weren't near the poles the world would have been nearly ice free and life flourished in an even warmer world.

So your saying because it is only a small amount of the total gas in the atmsophere is CO2, that it can't have a big effect?

Thats right, the expansion of life will absorb it eventually.

Swap the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with I don't know oh... chlorine. See how that works out for our planet heh. Small changes can have a very large impact.

And what would chlorine do to climate? It would get removed from the atmosphere by precipitation fairly fast like how volcano outgassing is removed.

The 1940 dip was part of an overall rising in temperature.

Yes, we've been on a warming trend since the 1800s when the mini ice age finally ended. And an even longer one from the end of the ice age. But you didn't address the point, sea levels actually dropped during the preceding warm period and then rose as the world cooled all in the matter of 7 decades. Why? Warmer means more evaporation, and more evaporation means more rainfall which means more snow over ice sheets. Thats what determines sea levels, land ice melt compared to precip over ice sheets. On the shorter term precip over land removes water from the oceans and puts it into the hydro cycle.

Define "chaotic". The milankovich cycle lasts 100,000 years, or close enough on average anyway and other natural phenomina do effect temperature but that does not mean we cannot do it on our own.

Chaotic - huge temp swings. Ice sheets covering much of the northern hemisphere translate into faster cold winds. The last 10,000 years have been remarkably stable compared to the previous 10,000 years. Within that 100 K cycle are smaller cycles, they just happen to line up every 100 K or so. The tilt of the Earth is probably the most important factor and it cycles every 41,000 years. From one extreme to the other takes 21 K years...

Not neccesarily. Global winds, yeh are a mighty force!

Huh? More rain means more snow means more water transported to ice sheets where it is locked up.

So you think what, global warming is a good thing, because it'll provide some warmer areas.... while disrupting global winds and putting some of the planet into a deep freeze :?

Huh? Ice sheets accelerate global winds and what part of the world now warm will enter a deep freeze?

A majority of humanity, lives fairly close to the ocean. A rise in sea levels would be absolutley catastrophic.

First, that assumes a rise in sea levels. That aint what happened between 1900 and 1970, the opposite happened. Second, I'm sure we can figure out ways to regulate sea level. Just pump water inland somewhere and create an inland sea and increase production of fresh water from ocean water for people to use and for crops. Hell, just pump ocean water onto an ice sheet and it'll get locked up for eons.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


(than I)

You say "I" when the subject, "me" as the object.

Sorry bud.

[Kuciwalker]

He is the subject. It's short form for "You're even more short sighted than I am." With the word me, he means "You are even more short sighted than you are me," which is probably true but also probably not what he meant to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Than

[Reiko]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
Such loons are probably bought by the petrol-company scammers who want to steal my money for an easy laugh.

Reiko, are you a one trick pony? You don't even bother to discuss, happy with quoting random stuff that seems to sustain your belief. Whose DL are you?

Discuss what? That it's funny there are people out there who believe in the man-made global warming scam with the same mindless glee as die-hard bible thumpers?

The point of posting links like this one..

New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

...is to show it doesn't take much searching to find reports on evidence that shows it is BS and there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

It's also interesting to note the usual response is "they are being paid by oil companies"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
That is it's only value? Sentimental value?

In the long term that's probably it's only value to us. With the technological sophistication you describe the ecosphere would have little practical value to humans.

You may be asking about whether it has value to itself. Perhaps in the way an alien civilization would obviously have value to itself. I don't know and I don't think you really know either. What life has intrinsic value? I know human life does but I have to resort to anthropomorphic assumptions to ascribe similar value to other living things. There are some species I'm willing to do that for but for most I think it's a total mystery. For all plants, fungi and unicellular organisms I think it is meaningless to ascribe to their existence any intrinsic value (ie value to themselves not to others like humans).

For the critters with brains and the possibility of some sort of independent subjective experience worth preserving for it's own sake, we are mostly familiar with pets and zoo animals who have their every need catered to. They mostly seem content but are the animals in the wild as happy and content? What if the social/survival pressures in the wilderness for the typical animal are even greater than ours? Philosophically If I'm going to make assumptions about these things and make sacrifices based on those assumptions I want them based on direct communication or some equivalent of mind reading on the animals in situ not on speculation.

If it's possible to consider a world with fewer humans as superior to one with more humans why must a world with more animals be intrinsically superior to one with fewer or even none? The only solid answer I can give relies on their value to humans both practical and sentimental.

[Blake]

Why do you put so much freaking value on the biological instinct to reproduce? Why is it sacred and divine?

[Patroklos]

You don't get laid much, do you?

[Blake]

Originally posted by Geronimo
What life has intrinsic value? I know human life does but I have to resort to anthropomorphic assumptions to ascribe similar value to other living things.

Ah, so you do believe humans are of divine nature. Well, end of argument.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake
Why do you put so much freaking value on the biological instinct to reproduce? Why is it sacred and divine?

I can hardly believe you're addressing this to me. Are you??

I just said that I saw no intrinsic value to unicellular organisms and nothing beats them for reproductive potential.

I *do* place enormous value on human life because I have one and it's awesome and I can infer that it's an amazing wonderful thing (at least potentially) for all other healthy humans. 2 healthy humans are 2x as good as 1 healthy human all else being equal.

In your hypothetically ultra advanced world I would see the possibility for far far more healthy humans than we have now. Of course they'd be crowded but they'd likely be used to it and could indulge in enough of lifes rewards to make it worthwhile.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Blake


Ah, so you do believe humans are of divine nature. Well, end of argument.

by what definition of divine? It's not a term I apply much meaning or use to.