Truth is, I've tended, since age 17 or so to shy away from axiomatic thinking. But with all the "debate" surrounding global warming and manmade alterations to our environment, this seems appropriate:
The most powerful agent for change in any given biosphere is its nearest solar neighbor. To wit, sunspots alter our weather, and the right magnitude of solar flare could destroy all life on Earth -- alternately, our sun (however unlikely at this juncture in its development) could go nova.
The second most powerful agent for change in any given biosphere is a nearby large object which could collide with it; we're all pretty sure how the dinosaurs went bye-bye. The megatonnage from any NEO impact would dwarf the whole lot of our nuclear warheads deployed at once.
The third most powerful agent for change in any given biosphere is the most technologically dependent species born of that biosphere.
How can we possibly argue against our own involvement in the destruction of the web of life upon which we rely? And where do these Domenechian freaks come from?
At Least Dex Might Be Interested...
2.12.2007
Ore : 11:45 PM
Ore : 11:45 PM
[ back home ]
Comments for At Least Dex Might Be Interested...
It was sometime between all the people who knew their shit telling me that global warming was real, and when I'd call the doubters on their facts and they didn't know their shit, that I realized the truth does lay in the middle.
Until we came along the common beaver was the greatest landscape changer, and bacteria were the greatest active influence on atmospheric gas concentrations.
we suck
Until we came along the common beaver was the greatest landscape changer, and bacteria were the greatest active influence on atmospheric gas concentrations.
we suck
and like a moth to the flame...
i think you're on track (for what it's worth, i think an argument could also be made that yr third category could be also include/be substituted by the one furthest up on the food chain, or maybe the one furthest along the evolutionary ladder. maybe like a footnote. i don't know, i don't know footnotes).
i watched a thing on cspan2 about a week ago, this talk a heritage foundation droid was giving about his new book, something called eco-freaks. somebody asked him about the ipcc, and his response was that global warming probably wasn't going to be a problem because temps have only risen a degree in the last fifty years, and the world scientific community says that the increase would be along the lines of only three or four degrees celsius so what's the big deal.
this is such an ignorant statement - a fundamentally ignorant statement - that my mouth literally dropped open. when climate scientists talk about rising temps, they mean the whole world getting warmer by three degrees: imagine the heat needed to be generated to raise the average temperature of an object the size of the planet. this of course will wreck havoc on local ecosystems and on local weather - can you dig how hot arizona will get if the planet warms by three degrees?
i didn't come to environmentalism and ecology from more of a journalisty background - that is, i had to learn it on the fly - and much of my academic work is around policy and politics, but like you noted, a lot of basic science around how global warming is happening is really easy to grasp; there simply is no reason for people with cushy heritage foundation gigs and other talking heads not to understand it.
i think you're on track (for what it's worth, i think an argument could also be made that yr third category could be also include/be substituted by the one furthest up on the food chain, or maybe the one furthest along the evolutionary ladder. maybe like a footnote. i don't know, i don't know footnotes).
i watched a thing on cspan2 about a week ago, this talk a heritage foundation droid was giving about his new book, something called eco-freaks. somebody asked him about the ipcc, and his response was that global warming probably wasn't going to be a problem because temps have only risen a degree in the last fifty years, and the world scientific community says that the increase would be along the lines of only three or four degrees celsius so what's the big deal.
this is such an ignorant statement - a fundamentally ignorant statement - that my mouth literally dropped open. when climate scientists talk about rising temps, they mean the whole world getting warmer by three degrees: imagine the heat needed to be generated to raise the average temperature of an object the size of the planet. this of course will wreck havoc on local ecosystems and on local weather - can you dig how hot arizona will get if the planet warms by three degrees?
i didn't come to environmentalism and ecology from more of a journalisty background - that is, i had to learn it on the fly - and much of my academic work is around policy and politics, but like you noted, a lot of basic science around how global warming is happening is really easy to grasp; there simply is no reason for people with cushy heritage foundation gigs and other talking heads not to understand it.
I wonder if Bush is too damned dumb to know that terraforming Mars is Designed GCC? Unlike the variety we've evolved to vacuously master-mind on Earth.
We have a perfect Business opportunity - save the world from ourselves. It'll keep us alive and lead to a greener Earth than ever as well as the tech to enliven Mars to the point where all ya need's an O2 mask and spf 50 to walk outside there.
If I live to 100, I can retire there, or more likely, in orbit.
We have a perfect Business opportunity - save the world from ourselves. It'll keep us alive and lead to a greener Earth than ever as well as the tech to enliven Mars to the point where all ya need's an O2 mask and spf 50 to walk outside there.
If I live to 100, I can retire there, or more likely, in orbit.
- Posted at 4:22 PM | By
Michael Bains
Freedom Camp | Blogger Templates by layoutstudios.com and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Learn how to Make Money Online at GeckoandFly
