Re: A Weekend to Stop the War


"Richard Morris" <jrmorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:XPmdnX_Jw7EdGXPfRVn-3w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" <Davko58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:WVuHe.452$Uz1.1735@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> snip
>
>> I don't know if I believe all this gloom and doom or not, but I'll
>> stipulate for the sake of argument that the climate is being changed by
>> man. Climates have always changed of course, it wasn't all that long ago
>> that North America was covered by a *** of ice. A really nasty
>> volcanic eruption can change the climate, and has in the last few
>> thousand years.
>>
>> What's the difference, really? Change is change, right?
>
> No ... change is not necessarily change. There are certainly degrees of
> change ... but more importantly, there is a rate of change.
>
> I believe that you are correct that the climate has changed cyclically
> through time ... ice ages and so forth. But the rate of change has been
> very slow ... at minimum, I would guess thousands of years. What we are
> seeing now is some pretty dramatic warming taking place within a century.
> Interesting article in this month's Smithsonian magazine, with photographs
> of Alaska glaciers from the turn of the century, compared with photos
> taken from the same place within the last few years. The glaciers have
> all but diasappeared within the last 100 years, indicating that perhaps
> there has been a dramatic increase in rate of change.
>
>> The effect is similar. Is the idea that because we're doing it its
>> horrible but if nature does it its cool? Or is nature bad when it
>> changes things around, like when it wiped out the dinosaurs?
>
> I think that the question is two-fold. First ... what will the
> consequences be, and second, are we prepared to accept them. When you
> can't even get a government to admit something is going on, it is likely
> that we will be uprepared for whatever consequences might ensue.
>
>> Maybe man is part of nature. Maybe we're changing the climate like a
>> herd of elephants changes a riverbank by feeding along it for half a day.
>> Without the elephants eating everything in sight certainly some plants
>> and animals would be benefitted, just as others are benefitted by the
>> elephants devastating feeding rampage.
>>
>> Some win, some lose, no matter what.
>
> Humankind is rather unique in that we can intentionally modify our
> environment.
>
>> Not to say I'm not a bit concerned about all this, some South Pacific
>> island nations are going to disappear under the water in a few years,
>> like Tokelau. I know people from there, I've visited the area. Its
>> pretty sad.
>>
>> But on the other hand, most Tokelauans moved off the islands long before
>> this began. They moved to New Zealand where they can live better lives.
>> Its not all that glamorous sitting on a tiny speck of an atoll struggling
>> to grow breadfruit and raise pigs. Its hard. The islands weren't
>> designed to sustain any sizable population of human life in the first
>> place. Maybe they should all leave. The vast majority would be leaving
>> even if their islands weren't sinking underwater due to man caused
>> climate change.
>>
>> If the west stopped emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, the Chinese and
>> Indians and Brazilians and Indonesians would make up the difference in a
>> few years and the greenhouse effect would continue unabated. No change.
>> Won't be as bad as it could have been, but it won't be any better.
>> Actually it will probably get worse as those nations have no concern
>> whatsoever for the environment, its all rape and pillage to them.
>
> And this is an argument to do nothing? Sounds more like a curious sort of
> fatalism to me!
>
>> Is man part of nature........ or some higher, independent force that
>> should control its natural inclinations to build and destroy? Maybe
>> we're supposed to destroy everything, to follow our natural instincts.
>> Or maybe nature is telling us to do something about it by giving us
>> brains and the scientific method.
>>
>> I say the former, and maybe the latter too, but it really doesn't matter.
>> What will happen will happen. Its how we adapt that will be interesting.
>> And we will adapt. Everything always does, for better or worse.
>
> Yep, fatalism. Hehe ...
>
> Mankind is part of nature, but has been gifted with the ability to
> estimate and anticipate the consequences of his actions. The question is,
> what is going to happen as a result of climate change, and do we want that
> to occur?
>
> Here is analogy: The village well. Only source of water. If I *** in
> the well, people are gonna get sick or go thirsty. Do I want that to
> happen?
>
> The flaw in the analogy of course is that we don't know that the effects
> of global warming will be negative, although some have speculated that
> there will be a dramtic increase in famine.
>
> I think that it would be a good idea to attempt to slow the rate of
> change, while the scientist types have an opportunity to get some studies
> and projections done. And since that is not the sort of activity that is
> likely to turn an immediate profit, it probably is best done with gummint
> financing.
>

Just musing Richard........... and I do believe that no matter what the west
does, the situation ain't changing much.

EGBH


.

Loading