Thread: Just think !

I have been watching this issue for sometime now. Most of these types of movies are for sale and you only get a glimpse of the idea.
I guess now they feel it is more important to do something about it before it becomes legal. They are encouraging a loss in DVD sales.

I don't know , I think this sums it up exactly like I would for the most part.

http://youtu.be/mEfJO0-cTis

Here's what I think. Humans can either affect the climate or they can't.

a) If they can it makes sense to figure out the best use, like we do with every other technology (let the free market sort it out is one way to figure it out).

b) If they can't somebody is spending a bunch of money on fiction, but that's nothing new.

I watched only the first two minutes to find out what's this about and for me watching the rest is a waste of time. If I want science I can get it from reputable scientific journals, if I want political analysis I'd get it from a somewhat-respected journal - this sounds like a sensationalist piece of the alarmist kind with political agenda of some sort.

Originally Posted by gugi

(let the free market sort it out is one way to figure it out).

The free market is great when failed experiments are not a problem.
When it comes to messing with the climate in major ways, I'd prefer if a little bit more care was given to the issue.
We only have 1 atmosphere and if we mess with it too bad, the results could be catastrophic.

That's generally true, but the big resources that can make irreversible difference tend to go with reason and caution. It's a bit like having nuclear weapons - you can do serious damage with them, but those with power to obliterate humankind have had more than enough sense not to go for it.

With regular type of big resources the damage one can inflict is probably comparable to something like a big industrial incident, say Exxon Valdez, or BP's Horizon, or Chernobil.

I agree with gugi. Whilst it's plausible that we're destroying the planet by a BUNCH of methods, they're linking things without substance. I don't think it's been proven, for instance, that there's a link between aluminium and all those conditions mentioned. Also, if something is killing 70 or 80 feet high trees, why show one less than a foot in height?


I'd also like to read some since instead of listening to a (former) TV weatherman. Does a weatherman need any qualifications at all?

Actually, 10Pups, mate, I have absolutely NO idea what your post is actually about

Originally Posted by gugi

That's generally true, but the big resources that can make irreversible difference tend to go with reason and caution. It's a bit like having nuclear weapons - you can do serious damage with them, but those with power to obliterate humankind have had more than enough sense not to go for it.

With regular type of big resources the damage one can inflict is probably comparable to something like a big industrial incident, say Exxon Valdez, or BP's Horizon, or Chernobil.

Granted, but atmospheric disasters might be impossible to clean up before they have a lasting (counted in human lifetimes) impact. So even chernobil sized ones could be bad enough.

I don't know if the alarmist vid has much validity or not. Cloud seeding has been around since the 1940s Does cloud seeding work? - Scientific American . You would think that some progress has been made in the interim on its effectiveness but who knows.

The Free Market is good at establishing the cost of a good or service. It is not a particularly good arbiter of moral/ethical choices though. We know that from from things like sub prime loans and derivatives which brought economic chaos in 2008.

If the Free Market/large corporations had the ability to alter the weather effectively on a large scale you could easily wind up with a scenario much like the alarmist vid intimates.

Who really knows but it is a scary thought.

Bob

Originally Posted by gugi

Here's what I think. Humans can either affect the climate or they can't.

a) If they can it makes sense to figure out the best use, like we do with every other technology (let the free market sort it out is one way to figure it out).

b) If they can't somebody is spending a bunch of money on fiction, but that's nothing new.

I watched only the first two minutes to find out what's this about and for me watching the rest is a waste of time. If I want science I can get it from reputable scientific journals, if I want political analysis I'd get it from a somewhat-respected journal - this sounds like a sensationalist piece of the alarmist kind with political agenda of some sort.

Arguments between the "educated" and the "believers" are generally futile exercises. JMO

Originally Posted by rolodave

Arguments between the "educated" and the "believers" are generally futile exercises. JMO

Yup . . . on matters of the Environment my default position for anyone crying that we are killing the planet is to ignore them. Even if all the climate doomsayers are right, we will NOT kill the planet. At worst, we will have killed off our species.


The planet will be fine . . .

Originally Posted by Orville

Yup . . . on matters of the Environment my default position for anyone crying that we are killing the planet is to ignore them. Even if all the climate doomsayers are right, we will NOT kill the planet. At worst, we will have killed off our species.


The planet will be fine . . .

So you are a George Carlin disciple then.

Bob