Mother Earth Is Tag-teamed!

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html

If global warming werent enough, now its joined by global cooling! We're doomed!

 

[emap]

Oh good greif, the only thing that is going to kill man is man. Man experienced one ice age already, without cars, cell phones, airplanes, heating systems, houses and so forth. About the only thing man had for the last ice age was their brain, and spears. Man is still around so I think we made it.

This whole sordid world is heating up no it's cooling off is simply scientists being doomsdayish so they can get attention and money. Sadly, the majority of the planet is listening and going oh my god we are all going to die.

 

[starrkers]

The old saying "THere are only two things sure in life - death and taxes" needs a corollary "and doomsayers".
Today it's global warming. When I was at uni it was nuclear holocaust.

 

[elsol]

I'll take global cooling...

I watched a tv show on one of the science network where the last global warming thing which caused a massive worldwide drought almost killed humans at the onset.

Cool is much easier to deal with than hot. (Except in sex... then I definitely prefer HOT!HOT!HOT!)

 

[Weird Harold]

This whole sordid world is heating up no it's cooling off is simply scientists being doomsdayish so they can get attention and money.

You forgot, "we have to plan how to stop the next Dinosaur Killer, so we astronomers are going to need a LOT of new telescopes and stuff and the space program is going to need all sorts of new stuff too."

There's the "Pandemic Flu is going to come back someday, so CDC and homeland security need more stuff, too."

It seems as if only Doomsday is sufficent justification to deserve any funding, so little things like cancer and AIDS research get shafted in favor of the "Doomsday of the Month Club."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

' "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

'Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile -- liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

'No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions -- because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.'

from Holman Jenkins, "The Science of Gore's Nobel," WSJ, December 5, 2007

 

[elsol]

' "Availability cascade" has been coined for the way a proposition can become irresistible simply by the media repeating it; "informational cascade" for the tendency to replace our beliefs with the crowd's beliefs; and "reputational cascade" for the rational incentive to do so.

'Public opinion cascades are powerful but also fragile -- liable to be overturned in an instant when new information comes along. The current age of global warming politics will certainly end with a whimper once a few consecutive years of cooling are recorded. Why should we expect such cooling? Because the forces that caused warming and cooling in the past, before the advent of industrial civilization, are still at work.

'No, this wouldn't prove or disprove a human role in warming, only that climate is variable and subject to complicated influences. But it would also eliminate the large incentive for politicians to traffic in doom-laden predictions -- because such predictions would no longer command media assent and would cease to function as levers to redistribute resources.'

from Holman Jenkins, "The Science of Gore's Nobel," WSJ, December 5, 2007

Dammit!

And I was in such a mood for an apocalypse.

Personally, I think all this doomsaying is occurring because we haven't gotten over the psychology of the Cold War and MADD. This is just post-traumatic stress syndrome.

When the boomers and my generation die off, these farts will all blow away.

 

[Weird Harold]

Personally, I think all this doomsaying is occurring because we haven't gotten over the psychology of the Cold War and MADD. This is just post-traumatic stress syndrome.

When the boomers and my generation die off, these farts will all blow away.

I don't think that it's Boomer and Kids related at all -- the most vocal and strident Doomsayers never knew the Cold War or only knew the end stages as current events items in grade-school.

FWIW, I don't think the Cold War and MADD were all that exceptional in Human History, it was just a bit more plausible that the normal "Sword of Damacles" scenarios every generation has seen hanging over it's collective heads.

The only thing unusual about the current drop of looming disasters is the number and variety -- usually Humanity only adopts one doomsday scenario to fret over at a time.

 

[amicus]

Chuckles...this be a cute and entertaining thread, thanks JBJ, I wonder where you keep coming up with this stuff, Great!

I am going to take this opportunity to venture forth a little speculative original thinking, in that I have neither read nor heard any of this anywhere.

Now...I do not and readily admit, have the scientific expertise in any area to support my contentions or document them, nonetheless...

I may be a half million years early, give or take, ahem, but...earth...the solar system itself, is aging, as all things are and do.

Taking just one thing as a starting point, volcanic activity on earth. From what I know about the subject, it is steadily decreasing as earth's core gradually cools.

Scientific predictions about extinction level events concerning 'super volcanoes', base their predictions on past eruptive events to forecast future ones, such as the Yellowstone Caldera.

X number of years between previous eruptions, they say, dictate that another massive eruption is predictable, give or take a hundred thousand years.

According to the best scientific evidence, one is due anytime.

I suggest that core dynamics do not remain static, but as earth cools, the migration of magma pools, such as the one under Yellowstone, or the Hawaiian Islands, will eventually, as earth cools, diminish and become non existent and a thing of the past as earth ages and moves into middle age doldrums.

Eh?

Another example, killer asteroids, thought to have been responsible for the death of the dinosaurs....

Since the beginning of the solar system and the asteroid and Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, the number of objects in the near reaches of the solar system, although vast, is finite. Right? Only so many of the damned things with a bullseye on earth.

If your are interested enough to have read this far, you are smart enough to see where I am leading you and I need not belabor the point.

The law of diminishing returns, in a twisted sort of way.

What say?

Amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

I don't get why everyone sulks and gets all hissy whenever looking after the planet is mentioned

 

[amicus]

I don't get why everyone sulks and gets all hissy whenever looking after the planet is mentioned

~~~!

It's not, 'hissy', zade, it's just that the 'Woodstock' generation, who couldn't even clean their own rooms or bathe, or cut their hair or care who they slept with, has set out to save the planet.

That, my dear, is hillarious (misspelled on purpose)

Amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

~~~!

It's not, 'hissy', zade, it's just that the 'Woodstock' generation, who couldn't even clean their own rooms or bathe, or cut their hair or care who they slept with, has set out to save the planet.

That, my dear, is hillarious (misspelled on purpose)

Amicus...

No, it's just that people look after their bodies, their homes and their possessions without question - we go to the gym, take vitamin supplements, get our cars serviced, carry out home improvements etc. etc. without batting an eyelid.

But the second the "are we doing enough to care for our environment" question comes up, people either don't want to know, or they get paranoid they're being lied to about global warming, or they prefer to pass the problem on to the next generation.

It just seems weird, that's all.

And I'm quite happy to stand up and say that the USA needs a good kick up its arse for all the procrastination it's done over climate change deals.

 

[amicus]

I doubt you want to know, maybe, but perhaps others do...

First of all, the planet is not in peril.

Really, kid, it ain't.

Global warming is a farce. Over population, is a farce.

Most of the ecological, environmental hysteria, is a complete farce.

As you implied, people take care of their own property.

Extend that.

If all property were privately owned and managed it would be nurtured and cared for, for the benefit of its owner.

When the 'collective', when, 'government' owns and manages real property, no one has a vested interest, thus no one cares for it.

You really want to solve all the worlds problems? Insist that government back off, make all property privately owned, enforce individual property rights and protect them and 'VOILA!'

Everything will be all right.

Told you, you didn't want to know, keep on crying for the whales, don't want to interrupt your reverie.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

But the second the "are we doing enough to care for our environment" question comes up, people either don't want to know, or they get paranoid they're being lied to about global warming, or they prefer to pass the problem on to the next generation.

two points:

1: I'm old enough that Global Warmng really does sound like the latest offering from the the Doom of the Month Club. I've lived through too many predictions of doom and environmentl disaster to get all worked up over one more -- whether it's really the wolf or just another false alrm.

2: I don't mind questions about "whether we're doing enough to care for the environment" but I strenously object to flat assertions that we are NOT doing enough and we're all going to die because we haven't done enough.

 

[amicus]

There may be hope for you yet, Weird one...

I tried to put a smiley in...it didn't work...

ami...

 

[scheherazade_79]

two points:

1: I'm old enough that Global Warmng really does sound like the latest offering from the the Doom of the Month Club. I've lived through too many predictions of doom and environmentl disaster to get all worked up over one more -- whether it's really the wolf or just another false alrm.

2: I don't mind questions about "whether we're doing enough to care for the environment" but I strenously object to flat assertions that we are NOT doing enough and we're all going to die because we haven't done enough.

We're safe enough. I was thinking more about the future generations and people who live in the Third World. But as that's going to have very little impact on our lives, you're absolutely right - why bother?

It's already been proven that the world and its resources can only sustain a certain number of people. It's also been proven that we exceeded that figure a while back, and world population is still growing. It doesn't really affect us that much - we might notice our grocery bills going up as certain types of fish are made extinct through our greed, we might whinge at how expensive the dwindling oil resources are making it to fill up our car. But these are all minor inconveniences, because at the end of the day we can return to our little Disneyland of denial and know that whatever happens, we'll be ok.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to get into a heated debate on whether or not we're to blame for global warming. But to pretend that what we're doing to the planet is ok, and we can keep uprooting all the trees, get rid of natural habitats to squeeze more people in, and keep fishing until there isn't a single damn thing left in the sea - that's just plain stubbornness.

So when low-lying countries get submerged by rising sea-levels, wars break out over food shortages, large parts of the world become uninhabitable as a result of our toxic waste, and all the people who lived there can't anymore and want to come to your country - is it still going to be ok?

Sure. It's the future. But it's a lot closer than you think.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I tried to put a smiley in...it didn't work...

ami...

the screen cracked in the process

 

[scheherazade_79]

I doubt you want to know, maybe, but perhaps others do...

First of all, the planet is not in peril.

Really, kid, it ain't.

Global warming is a farce. Over population, is a farce.

Most of the ecological, environmental hysteria, is a complete farce.

As you implied, people take care of their own property.

Extend that.

If all property were privately owned and managed it would be nurtured and cared for, for the benefit of its owner.

When the 'collective', when, 'government' owns and manages real property, no one has a vested interest, thus no one cares for it.

You really want to solve all the worlds problems? Insist that government back off, make all property privately owned, enforce individual property rights and protect them and 'VOILA!'

Everything will be all right.

Told you, you didn't want to know, keep on crying for the whales, don't want to interrupt your reverie.

Amicus...

Call me "kid" again and I'll slap you so hard you'll be spinning around like a top for the next hour

You can be very nice sometimes, Amicus. Today isn't one of those times.

 

[amicus]

We're safe enough. I was thinking more about the future generations and people who live in the Third World. But as that's going to have very little impact on our lives, you're absolutely right - why bother?

It's already been proven that the world and its resources can only sustain a certain number of people. It's also been proven that we exceeded that figure a while back, and world population is still growing. It doesn't really affect us that much - we might notice our grocery bills going up as certain types of fish are made extinct through our greed, we might whinge at how expensive the dwindling oil resources are making it to fill up our car. But these are all minor inconveniences, because at the end of the day we can return to our little Disneyland of denial and know that whatever happens, we'll be ok.

I'm not a scientist, so I'm not going to get into a heated debate on whether or not we're to blame for global warming. But to pretend that what we're doing to the planet is ok, and we can keep uprooting all the trees, get rid of natural habitats to squeeze more people in, and keep fishing until there isn't a single damn thing left in the sea - that's just plain stubbornness.

So when low-lying countries get submerged by rising sea-levels, wars break out over food shortages, large parts of the world become uninhabitable as a result of our toxic waste, and all the people who lived there can't anymore and want to come to your country - is it still going to be ok?

Sure. It's the future. But it's a lot closer than you think.

~~~

It is most likely a useless gesture and a waste of time...none the less, if not for you...than perhaps for another lost soul...


"...It's already been proven that the world and its resources can only sustain a certain number of people. It's also been proven that we exceeded that figure a while back, and world population is still growing..."

That is simply not true, you are wrong. Read the Malthus theory, follow the thinking, Two hundred years ago the foolish ones, like you, true believers, said the world could not support a billion lives. Wrong.


"... we might notice our grocery bills going up as certain types of fish are made extinct through our greed, .."

Again, not true, not even a little, there are zillions of fish in the sea. When one species diminishes, commercial fisherman, who make a living by fishing, move to another species and the old one recovers. Been going on for centuries. Once again you are wrong, totally wrong.

I really cannot address, in brief, the malady that so corrupts your vision, I don't even know where to begin.

We are given life. We must have sustenance to exist. We mulitiply according to our nature. The world does not belong to the fish or the buffalo or the whales, we, homo sapiens, are the dominant species and the world is ours to make of it as we choose.

You don't like the nature of man? Go whine to a God somewhere or join the real world and look to the future.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Call me "kid" again and I'll slap you so hard you'll be spinning around like a top for the next hour

"...You can be very nice sometimes, Amicus. Today isn't one of those times...'

The 'Kid', was because your thoughts sound childish, change that, I'll change my reference to you.

Grown ups don't believe in fairy tales.

Amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

~~~


"...It's already been proven that the world and its resources can only sustain a certain number of people. It's also been proven that we exceeded that figure a while back, and world population is still growing..."

That is simply not true, you are wrong. Read the Malthus theory, follow the thinking, Two hundred years ago the foolish ones, like you, true believers, said the world could not support a billion lives. Wrong.

I read the Economist a week ago, and it wasn't a number pulled out of thin air. It was a lengthy article about the USA dumping its e-garbage on India, and then pretending there is no waste disposal problem, because it's out of sight and out of mind.

"... we might notice our grocery bills going up as certain types of fish are made extinct through our greed, .."

Again, not true, not even a little, there are zillions of fish in the sea. When one species diminishes, commercial fisherman, who make a living by fishing, move to another species and the old one recovers. Been going on for centuries. Once again you are wrong, totally wrong.

Yup, it's worked in the past, and in practice it could work now. But there are a lot more of us fishing these days. So many of us that when a species starts dwindling it's going to take a while for the "fish for something else, guys!" message to reach everyone. And that's assuming that individual nations and people choose to listen and do as they're asked.

When fishermen are told not to catch certain types of fish, they don't suddenly get these magic nets that only catch fish with healthy populations. All it means is that they're banned from selling certain types of fish at markets. The fish still get killed in the nets - they're just thrown overboard instead of going to market.

I really cannot address, in brief, the malady that so corrupts your vision, I don't even know where to begin.

I have doubts over whether you can address anything in brief, least of all things that clash with your tunnel vision.

We are given life. We must have sustenance to exist. We mulitiply according to our nature. The world does not belong to the fish or the buffalo or the whales, we, homo sapiens, are the dominant species and the world is ours to make of it as we choose.

I don't agree, but if helps to understand it that way, then fine - how about preserving what we have for some of the homo sapiens of the future?

You don't like the nature of man? Go whine to a God somewhere or join the real world and look to the future.

After that diatribe I don't think you're in any position to be telling me to look to the future. In fact, in light of what you've said that line's kind of funny

 

[scheherazade_79]

The 'Kid', was because your thoughts sound childish, change that, I'll change my reference to you.

Grown ups don't believe in fairy tales.

Amicus...

Do you believe in Creationism by any chance?

 

[Weird Harold]

We're safe enough. I was thinking more about the future generations and people who live in the Third World. But as that's going to have very little impact on our lives, you're absolutely right - why bother?

You missed or ignored my point:

Global Warming, Fishery Depletions, Excess Population, Ozone Depletion et al are just the Chicken Little Panics of the moment.

That does not mean that those issues are non-existent, or that nothing should be done, it just means that we can't just ignore every other concern to deal with the most popular doomsday scenario of the moment.

No one issue can be allowed to dictate our ecological or economic policies and the amount of resources that can be directed to averting any one doomsday scenario is limited, let alone the amount of resoures that are available to deal with ALL of the doomsday scenarios at once.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Richard Feynman, an atheist, made this point: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Global Warming is easily exploited by politicians for new tax revenues. Pseudo-intellectuals like it because it creates grants for them.