Moreover, the "fixing" rests on the assumption that the cause is something we can control, such as the temperature of the sun. It also begs the question as to whether we live in the best of all possible worlds already, such that you would want to keep things the way they are now. Given that we don't understand enough about cloud formation, the oceans, the atmosphere, the sun and the bio-sphere to make accurate models, I'm slightly incredulous that we are thinking about spending $250,000,000,000 per annum on "fixing" at all. There is no doubt the earth is warming and sea levels are rising, but change is natural phenomena and our species will adapt to that change, as it has always done in the past.
Can I ask you to interpret the temperature/carbon graph? Yes there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but what interests me are the peaks on the graph every 100,000 years or so which seem to occur without human interference. Moreover, the peaks occur extremely rapidly (it looks like a "crash") and then decrease slowly towards the next peak (the "recovery").
Isn't this just a perfectly normal atmospheric cycle, although over geological time?
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part.
All of us who wear glasses? We should have been culled. All these people developing diabetes from eating too much sugar? Selected against. Asthma? You get the picture.
Running with the idea that there is a higher power that created the world, I would say that Natural Selection is the method that higher power uses to figure out what works. But now with health care and a strong sense of altruism, errors in the genetic code are propagating throughout our species and wrecking havoc. In other words, we're playing god by saving lives that should have been selected against and allowing them to pass on their flawed genes.Sorry if my first post here is highly naïve, but you are making the assumption that caring for the sick or less fortunate is not itself a trait that has been selected for in previous generations. You mention a strong sense of altruism. This trait remains in the population because it is selected for, especially as Human (and primate) populations survive as groups, not as individuals.
Slashdot Mirror
Moreover, the "fixing" rests on the assumption that the cause is something we can control, such as the temperature of the sun. It also begs the question as to whether we live in the best of all possible worlds already, such that you would want to keep things the way they are now. Given that we don't understand enough about cloud formation, the oceans, the atmosphere, the sun and the bio-sphere to make accurate models, I'm slightly incredulous that we are thinking about spending $250,000,000,000 per annum on "fixing" at all. There is no doubt the earth is warming and sea levels are rising, but change is natural phenomena and our species will adapt to that change, as it has always done in the past.
Can I ask you to interpret the temperature/carbon graph? Yes there is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2, but what interests me are the peaks on the graph every 100,000 years or so which seem to occur without human interference. Moreover, the peaks occur extremely rapidly (it looks like a "crash") and then decrease slowly towards the next peak (the "recovery"). Isn't this just a perfectly normal atmospheric cycle, although over geological time?
Humans have escaped the phenomenon of Natural Selection, for the most part. All of us who wear glasses? We should have been culled. All these people developing diabetes from eating too much sugar? Selected against. Asthma? You get the picture. Running with the idea that there is a higher power that created the world, I would say that Natural Selection is the method that higher power uses to figure out what works. But now with health care and a strong sense of altruism, errors in the genetic code are propagating throughout our species and wrecking havoc. In other words, we're playing god by saving lives that should have been selected against and allowing them to pass on their flawed genes.Sorry if my first post here is highly naïve, but you are making the assumption that caring for the sick or less fortunate is not itself a trait that has been selected for in previous generations. You mention a strong sense of altruism. This trait remains in the population because it is selected for, especially as Human (and primate) populations survive as groups, not as individuals.