No, 40 years ago "climate scientists" did not think we were going back to a glacial period. A FEW people wrote about it which got lots of press exposure. Remember, ''nuclear winter' was a big deal back then. Most climate scientists did not agree with the theory.
So, if you are in the habit of cherry picking your data and extrapolating from a few points, you're golden. If you want to really figure out what might happen in the future, it's going to take more work.
Perhaps the biologists can help me understand one thing. What do plant 'inhale'? I was taught that it was CO2 and they 'exhale' O2. If this is true, with an increase in CO2, shouldn't nature naturally begin to grow more abundantly and plants produce more O2, or is there something missing?
I keep seeing in nature that when something goes out-of-balance, there is a natural response to bring it back? Seems to me that plants have gone through something like this before and will be able to adapt....as we and oth3er animals can, too.
Yep, you're missing something. It was alluded to very early in this discussion. It has something to do with TIME RATE OF CHANGE. Let's also add the concept of hysteresis and then finish with the idea that your are somehow giving 'nature' the responsibility of creating an environment suitable for large populations of humans. Populations of humans that are stressing the 'natural' ecology of the planet.
In short, Mother Nature isn't responsible for cleaning up your mess. Furthermore, dear old mom can be a cast iron bitch who doesn't give a rodent's south end about what happens to humans, or anything else. Life will adapt to the changing environment. Always has and within reasonably wide parameters, always will.
"Even Nixon pails (sic) in comparison with Obama."
Rose colored glasses much? Or maybe too many martinis at lunch. While I'm less and less enthralled with Obama, nobody holds a candle to Nixon / Kissinger in terms of malfeasance and outright illegality.
I've actually read at least some of the them. Yes it's complicated. No, we had no business being there in the capacity that we were. Yes, it 'made sense' at the time but that's the pull of history. We get the luxury of looking back (somewhat) dispassionately and figuring out what worked or didn't.
And I agree, the Middle East in general, Syria in particular, is much more complicated and much more fraught with existential danger. We shouldn't intervene there either unless we are prepared to take the ME back to pre WWI geopolitical boundaries and figure out what to do with Israel (give them NYC and maybe Miami - they can take the first Temple and reconstruct it next to Disneyland. Oh, I guess we have to give them Orlando. No great loss.)
Because the mark of a good representative democracy is secret action in alleged-but-unproven adherence to a set of classified interpretations, produced in a one-sided(in FISA court, the state makes its case, nobody takes the role of opposing counsel, and then the judges approve, of what, exactly, we don't know) proceeding, of what the law allows?
No, but it's a good working definition of the US at present.
Who are we at war with? Last time I checked, we had only declared war on Drugs, Poverty, Cancer and maybe a couple of other social ills. But no declared war against any sort of political or geographical entity (unless you consider Terrorism as a country).
Give us bread and circuses, and make sure our animals are distracted so they can't alert us to the downfall of civilization.
This truly is the decline of the American Empire.
Wait. What?
We just elected two utter bozos to the Presidency and a whole herd of idiots, fools and felons to Congress. You're worried about a television program? That caters to dogs?
Pick up the nearest block of wood and whap yourself upside the head with it a few times. See if that helps.
Like I said, give it up. Helicopter pilots have winched off many a 'wild, stressed animal'. You put it in a cage, you put a muzzle on it, you strap it down somewhere.
Exactly what you would do with the stressed, out of control human that you've just winched off the tree.
And no, if you want to take your snakes, you're on your own. We're in it for the cutes.
Humans can be rational at times, but it certainly isn't their default condition.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, we won haven''t we?
Seen any tigers recently?
What I want is a 737 pilot who thinks they are still in an F-16.
Whoo hooo!
No, 40 years ago "climate scientists" did not think we were going back to a glacial period. A FEW people wrote about it which got lots of press exposure. Remember, ''nuclear winter' was a big deal back then. Most climate scientists did not agree with the theory.
So, if you are in the habit of cherry picking your data and extrapolating from a few points, you're golden. If you want to really figure out what might happen in the future, it's going to take more work.
Perhaps the biologists can help me understand one thing. What do plant 'inhale'? I was taught that it was CO2 and they 'exhale' O2. If this is true, with an increase in CO2, shouldn't nature naturally begin to grow more abundantly and plants produce more O2, or is there something missing?
I keep seeing in nature that when something goes out-of-balance, there is a natural response to bring it back? Seems to me that plants have gone through something like this before and will be able to adapt....as we and oth3er animals can, too.
Yep, you're missing something. It was alluded to very early in this discussion. It has something to do with TIME RATE OF CHANGE. Let's also add the concept of hysteresis and then finish with the idea that your are somehow giving 'nature' the responsibility of creating an environment suitable for large populations of humans. Populations of humans that are stressing the 'natural' ecology of the planet.
In short, Mother Nature isn't responsible for cleaning up your mess. Furthermore, dear old mom can be a cast iron bitch who doesn't give a rodent's south end about what happens to humans, or anything else. Life will adapt to the changing environment. Always has and within reasonably wide parameters, always will.
Humans, not so much.
That comment is certainly integral to this discussion.
"Even Nixon pails (sic) in comparison with Obama."
Rose colored glasses much? Or maybe too many martinis at lunch. While I'm less and less enthralled with Obama, nobody holds a candle to Nixon / Kissinger in terms of malfeasance and outright illegality.
No, they aren't prone to aggression. They're pretty darn normal.
Where they would be the most useful not where they could cause the most damage.
Tightening the tin foil even harder hurts.
Even worse, the foil rips and I have to get a new one. This gets expensive.
What a wonderful time to be alive! All of these outrageous and unusual happenings!
WHOOSH!
(And that was NOT the DEET laden cigar popping off.)
Sort of, but it does explain politicians and Larry Ellison.
Transporters and Tractor Beams have yet to be invented.
I like French Fries.
I've actually read at least some of the them. Yes it's complicated. No, we had no business being there in the capacity that we were. Yes, it 'made sense' at the time but that's the pull of history. We get the luxury of looking back (somewhat) dispassionately and figuring out what worked or didn't.
And I agree, the Middle East in general, Syria in particular, is much more complicated and much more fraught with existential danger. We shouldn't intervene there either unless we are prepared to take the ME back to pre WWI geopolitical boundaries and figure out what to do with Israel (give them NYC and maybe Miami - they can take the first Temple and reconstruct it next to Disneyland. Oh, I guess we have to give them Orlando. No great loss.)
OK, too many NSA / CIA / FBI threads for you. Time for a break.
I really didn''t think HP could drop out any further but to add the guy responsible for Lotus Notes of all things?
I think it''s time to unfreeze David Packard and William Hewitt.
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Because the mark of a good representative democracy is secret action in alleged-but-unproven adherence to a set of classified interpretations, produced in a one-sided(in FISA court, the state makes its case, nobody takes the role of opposing counsel, and then the judges approve, of what, exactly, we don't know) proceeding, of what the law allows?
No, but it's a good working definition of the US at present.
Well now it turns out that CARNIVORE was just an appetizer. And a lot of us never STOPPED being worried about the slowing growing Panopticon.
Who are we at war with? Last time I checked, we had only declared war on Drugs, Poverty, Cancer and maybe a couple of other social ills. But no declared war against any sort of political or geographical entity (unless you consider Terrorism as a country).
Remember Vietnam? That entertaining little 'Police Action'? We were the aggressors (and on the wrong side) from the get go.
It's not all Bush's fault.
It''s not a number. OK, what is it? A vegetable?
Give us bread and circuses, and make sure our animals are distracted so they can't alert us to the downfall of civilization.
This truly is the decline of the American Empire.
Wait. What?
We just elected two utter bozos to the Presidency and a whole herd of idiots, fools and felons to Congress. You're worried about a television program? That caters to dogs?
Pick up the nearest block of wood and whap yourself upside the head with it a few times. See if that helps.
Like I said, give it up. Helicopter pilots have winched off many a 'wild, stressed animal'. You put it in a cage, you put a muzzle on it, you strap it down somewhere.
Exactly what you would do with the stressed, out of control human that you've just winched off the tree.
And no, if you want to take your snakes, you're on your own. We're in it for the cutes.
Humans can be rational at times, but it certainly isn't their default condition.