Reply With Quote
Very interesting article.
So a "true libertarian" would eliminate a right to freely and privately chosen collective property ownership? That's a new one.
Very interesting article.
Well of COURSE the planet will survive as a planet regardless of what we do to it. We could launch every nuclear weapon ever built, and it would be just a scratch on the surface of the Earth. But that's referring to the Earth as it is from the standpoint of a body in space. It will continue to remain a relatively small rock orbiting a relatively average sun, regardless of what we do to it.Common sense tells us that damaging a thing this old is somewhat easier to imagine than it is to accomplish—like invading Russia. The earth has suffered mass volcanic explosions, floods, meteor impacts, mountain formation, and all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict, and it’s still here. It’s a survivor. We don’t know exactly how the earth recovered from these devastations, because the rocks don’t say very much about that, but we do know that it did recover—the proof of it being that we are here.
However, there is evidence that what we are doing to the planet's ecosystem (not the crust) is gradually, but increasingly, killing life on the surface. The reason Earth is so special isn't because it's a rock orbiting a star, but because it's a living planet with millions of species of animal and plant. The fault in logic here is that supposing the Earth survives as a planet is not the same thing as proposing that it's ecology will remain intact -- and the ecosystem of the planet is what's so precious, and why we should be so concerned with saving it.
It's a horrible step in logic from saying, "Well, the planet will be here long after we are gone" to "we can do whatever we want". Wow. You mean we cannot destroy a rock that weighs roughly 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilograms? That's akin to saying, "Well, I don't know how to build a bomb big enough to blow up Texas, so I'll just litter, dump sewage, and pee on buildings everywhere I go. If everyone does the same thing (and some Texans make me wonder) then it won't destroy Texas as a landmass, but it will make the state a lot less pleasant to live in.
Or, maybe the point is, if humans were somehow able to "stabilize" the climate, wouldn't it be the first time Earth's climate has been stable in 4½ billion years?
As opposed to actively destabilizing it, as we appear to be doing now?
But are we, is the question. Maybe accelerating the process, sure, but the point is, the Earth will shift its temperature to an extreme all on its own.
..and thats the disconnect between history and predictive science. The Earth has shifted its temperature of its own accord and completely unrelated to humans about every 100k years or so (according to the article).
Are we on the backside of that 100k year plan? I dont know, article doesnt say (explicitly, anyway).
Point is, even if you shut off the power to the world and stopped every car in its tracks, failed to produce oil or burn coal, the Earth will still ultimately rise in temperature and the polar glaciers will melt.
There is nothing humans can do to stop this, even if we were an extinct species, the planet lives on and goes through its cycles.
Do you agree that exacerbating or expediting said warming could have disastrous effects, if that is indeed what is occurring?
fatalism aside, the question is still what can be done on our part to create a more homeostatic relationship with the environment for our lives and the generations of lives to come before the final curtain.
The climate is not and never has been homeostatic.
There is no "balance of nature".
Sincerely,
T.Rex
great. but where in my post did i even mention "climate" ?
Well, you said "environment", which is not static either.
neither is homeostasis; it is a dynamic process that tries to maintain a static balance.
and environment is not climate.
`Homeostasis ` is the property of either an open system or a closed system, especially a living organism, that regulates its internal environment so as to maintain a stable, constant condition. Multiple dynamic equilibrium adjustments and regulation mechanisms make homeostasis possible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis
Not all of us.
If that is indeed what is occuring, then I would only agree on it having an effect, with terms like "disastorous" being debatable.
My point is this, and only this.
Global warming is nothing new, it is only unpredictable. Is civilization accelerating the natural cycles of Earth? I dont know, nor does anyone else.
Scientists point to this or that, with some of them being on the disaster side and some on the "cant do about it" side.
Politics have muddied the waters to the detriment of the argument, IMO. We see the (Western) governments of the world embracing this self-guilt, not on its science, but on its political vehicle capacity.
I mean, what politician wants to look soft on crime, drugs, education and now the new, cool thing, the environment/global warming?
So, to be honest, anything a politician or Congress thinks about the issue is of no importance to me whatsoever. Its a method to garner votes, not effect change.
The actual impact the industrialized world has on the climate of Earth is strictly debatable, with no mountain of proof on the contending side that implicitly states that humans are the direct reason the Earth's climate is warming at some undetermined (but apparently accelarated) rate.
The burden of proof lies with the global warmers, not society at large.
My response continues below...
Now that I fully agree with.
Not once did I say we should abandon alternative energy research. I am a big proponent of renewable energy technology. It onyl makes sense, in the here-and-now and the long run, that our power be derived from some other source than fossil fuels.
Not because fossil fuels are finite or damaging to the world at large, but because the economic viability of coal and oil will soon outpace our ability to afford it.
If our infrastructure isnt heavily modified for the oncoming train of reality of oil supply and pricing, then we deserve our collective fate.
I fancy myself an outdoorsman. Not to CC's extreme (although, I am envious) or even CH's (dude has hiked about everywhere, it seems), but I love open land, abundant wildlife and clean bodies of water. I care and adhore my environment, especially here in Michigan where there is so much to see and enjoy.
But I am also a realist who knows government fear tactics are a sure fire reason to be extremely skeptical. Especially when "time is of the essence" on matters that, scientifically, are measured in geological terms (that is eons). There is no hurry to restrict our carbon lifestyle on the doomsday proclomations of a complicit government run by special interest groups who make money and investment on the ideas they push as facts.
To wit, lets pretend for a moment that the entire Western world all got on the same page as it pertains to global warming. All the restrictions, cap+trade, government subsidy, tax increases on fossil fuels (that are passed on to consumers, not companies, your cost of living goes up), the works...
Its a double edged sword that works to cut two ways.
1. It gives governments a new and adjustable revenue stream based on carbon output at both the supplier level and the consumer level. Its a double dip that, depending on the fear of the day, can be increased or decreased as necessary. Seeing as the governments of the world control how many "credits" are put into the market, they then make money on the taxes of each credit transaction. A triple dip. Brilliant piece that is.
2. Most importantly, it restricts trade with countries who are not compliant. For instance, India. A highly educated and native English speaking country that is woefully underdeveloped and is only recently taking massive steps to industrialize their nation. Basically, a big, giant hungry compe or who hasnt lived the sweet life for the past century and still knows what the word "work" actually means, unlike the sedentary Westerners who think piloting a desk all day qualifies as "productive work". Ah! But if they want to do business with the largest consumer market-sphere the planet has ever seen, they must restrict their carbon output, severly hindering their needed industrialization process to actually compete with the monopolizers. Long story short, they either accept their "environmental ultimatum" and be happy to only be the outsource location of service calls and engineers to the Western world and let their people rot on the vine or worse, emigrate out of the country. Or they cut their nose off to spite their face and tell the largest consumer markets in the world to " off". Either way, the West wins.
Which is, IMO, exactly what this entire political debate is about. The big fish are flailing in their own debt and new monetary streams are needed to flesh their budgets out (cap+trade and new taxes on everyone that consumes fossil fuels) with the added benefit of elbowing out the upstarts from playing at the big table. They sell it as a means to ween Westerners off of fossil fuel when everyone of them and us know that isnt even possible.
My question is, what climate impact are we trying to avert that requires quick action on our behalf? What coming paradox could even be avoided if the whole world shut down tomorrow?
I tend to believe nothing at all. Whats done is done and whats to come is to come. The Earth has laid the evidence at our feet that it goes through fits every now and again. It has shown to be extremely cold and extremely warm while nary a human was still in some primordial soup heating up on the gaseous output of a warm planet.
I find it extremely off-putting that so many see their existence germane to the discussion of Earth's cycle of processes. It could be a shift toward or away from the galactic center, a change in pitch of our solar orbit, a weakening of our magnetic fields that allow too much of our Sun's cosmis radiation through...or it could be about the time Earth hits menapause for the umpteenth time in its very long existence.
I prefer to think of climate change and our environment on economic viability terms. Being a more self-sufficent society, especially as it pertains to energy, is of extreme importance because the future is not bright for fossil fuel output and consumption. I think our government should definitely give giant tax breaks to renewable energy companies that are bringing new and more efficent products to market and the consumer will readily decide that unhooking themselves from the "Grid" is far more economical than the status quo. The consumer should then see a tax break for switching to more equitable and efficent energy mode.
I dont think government should be out soliciting guilt on the populace for a problem that may or may not even exist. Government should not be creating a new credit system for corporations to ration at market while controlling the supply and hurting their populace. Private citizens and organizations can do what they wish with their time, if its to spread propaganda and guilt or the saving of souls for the finite spots in the after-life, its a free country. But government should have no hand or say in the matter beyond the benefits a self-reliable nation of renewable energy allows.
I see global warming in the same light as terrorism, crime and drugs...the country always needs its "War on Something" to spread the fear and garner votes. It has all the vanilla appeal of all the other War on's...to be against it is to be a buffoon. Who doesnt want less crime? Or less terrorism? Or less drugs? Or less global warming?
But it also has the same exact underlying problems, too. Global warming is an abstract noun without a means to directly influence it. The less time my government and its people spend their money and time on abstract problems with no quantifiable solution that doesnt entail the degradation of our laws, our cost of living and our way of life, the better.
Well humans better find a way to make it so, or else we're all screwed if the Earth decides to get a bit warmer or a bit colder.
If the Earth decides it's ready for another Ice Age, we can't do squat about it.
I guess we'd all be encouraged to burn more fossil fuel.
Probably. Or build some bunkers with generators and stock up on canned foods.
another ice age should not be the standard for us to judge an ecological crisis by and, if that is the extreme measure we want to wantonly reference in order to justify environmental misconduct, then let's just adapt nihilism as the modern day maxim.
Or, perhaps enviro-catastrophists should recognize that much of our recent warming is from our recovering from the last "little" ice age?
if you want to connect my comment to some large set that has no defined characteristics so be it, but my comments on environmental regulation were not at all connected to current global warming theories (which i do not subscribe to by the way). if you want to make that connection then that is about as spot on as your understanding of homeostasis.
That's right. Hard to compete with natural celestial forces:
As the eccentricity gets smaller, the average annual solar radiation increases.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
