Could "we" be wrong about global warming?

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 9:34 am

And, of course, my point and position was the substance of 'leaving it as you found it' not if all American Indians (or anyone else) are correctly associated with that practice as they are in myth.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 3:37 pm

Ian, Rory, thank you. Well said.

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:03 pm

JimHawkins wrote:
'leaving it as you found it'

At what point in time? Plant life has been drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere for millions of years, and sequestering it underground. There has been a net draw of carbon from the atmosphere to pockets under the surface. And now the pendulum is swinging back, albeit at a dramatically quick rate. It's as if a rubber band was pulled, and then let go.

What is the "correct" distribution of carbon?

Should we similarly leave all minerals underground? It's kind of hard to build electric cars without lithium. (We'll ignore the obvious metals.)

Should we stop converting mass to energy? After all, this is a carbon-neutral source of energy.

I can think of many principles to live by. But this one can paint you in a corner pretty quickly if you take it to a literal extreme. And it implicitly assumes that Nature and the world are static - which they are not.

"Sustainable" is perhaps one to strive for, although that's difficult to take to forever. "Independent" is also a good one (energy independent).

- Bill

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:31 pm

You're trying to pick a few words apart.. Read the post, I said as clean as possible.....given, blah. blah, etc...

The less impact the better and it ain't just about carbon... If folks like the opposite that's fine by me, let god sort 'em out...

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Fri Jul 17, 2009 5:56 pm

JimHawkins wrote:
Responsibility wrt the environment should be the constant. . There are other ill effects of releasing too much carbon.. The cleaner we can keep the environment the better..

IJ · Post by IJ » Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:49 pm

Let's stop for a moment to plug birth control. If we could cut our numbers, there would be more to go around, and it would be very hard to overrun habitat and poison the earth and overfish no matter how hard we tried. Considering all the resources used, and all the gas/particulate/wastewater/runoff/garbage emissions our kids put out, whether you want to count CO2 as important among them or not, the most important techology for emission control we have is birth control, or for the more concrete thinkers out there, the condom.

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:01 am

No need for birth control. Mother nature has always controlled population when it has needed to. 300,000 in a tsunami a few years ago. Viruses we can only dream about, will be here someday. Vesuvius in 79 A.D. killed a good number of Romans, it's still active and there's millions nearby now.

And of course since population has gone from 1 billion to 3 billion since the "pill" was introduced it must not be working......

Science I don't see saving us, we're like a flea on a big dogs back. Just enjoy the ride, don't try to steer.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 3:31 am

Urban planning would go alot further in this country than birth control. And frankly, if you want people out of your bedroom, you should stay out of others.'

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 5:14 am

That's very libertarian of you, Jason.

Indeed, live and let live.

I think you make a good point as well, Fred. I don't know how it's going to come down, but it will. Nature finds a way.

- Bill

IJ · Post by IJ » Sat Jul 18, 2009 6:08 am

Yes, any population that's exploding will eventually stop, and probably come back down, perhaps suddenly. Nature finds a way. If we don't want to be the first species to control our numbers gracefully, instead of waiting for disaster and only after thousands of extinctions, the loss of natural beauty, the poisoning of our water and land and air, well, I guess our brains aren't as impressive as we think.

The most significant determinant of the birth rate is the economic and educational status of the women in a culture. Once they are aware of all the possibilities that await them when they're not kept illiterate, poor, and under someone's thumb (and pregnant), they control their own fertility. Occasionally they don't out of deference to a deity whose followers are not sure if condoms are moral in HIV serodiscordant couples, but that's another matter.... You don't have to force your way into someone's bedroom to change their behavior, a classroom and neutral information and opportunity will do.

Jason Rees · Post by **Jason Rees** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:08 pm

That's very libertarian of you, Jason. Indeed, live and let live.

China and I just don't see eye to eye on this one, Bill.

f.Channell · Post by **f.Channell** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:42 pm

with 99% of species extinct that have existed in the last 4.5 billion years of Earths time, it's a safe bet sometime in the future we'll be toast.
Good news is it should be long after we're extinct.
We might think we have the brains to stop it, but I bet the T-rex thought it was pretty tough too.

Any check of the weather on the news should confirm we don't know diddley, and far short of weather control.

F.

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:57 pm

T-Rex "tough" compared to nuclear capable humanoid brain?

Quite a stretch..

I'd give us much better odds than walnut brain T-Rex...

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 12:40 am

Want to know a likely survivor over the long run? The common cockroach. Brains? Nope. Ability to survive just about anything - in spite of mass extermination efforts? They are a good model.

- Bill

JimHawkins · Post by **JimHawkins** » Sun Jul 19, 2009 2:18 am

Sure and if the roaches can't hack it then I'm sure there will tons of bacterium that will make it... And then it starts all over again..

We may not be the first intelligent species either, another may have risen and been exterminated or chased away..

But given our go so far I'd give us pretty good odds, I am a glass half full guy after all.