A Rational Conversation about Climate Change

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,506
14,322
113
Low Earth Orbit
You underestimate the power of denial.
Nuclear is by far the top of the heap for clean, scalable and reliable energy. They arent cheap to build. There isnt a fast buck to be made. There isnt instant eco-gratication that warms the green cockles of the heart as you drive to the Provincial Park on the hydro reservoir once a year.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,506
14,322
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Earth Is Just as Alive as You Are
Scientists once ridiculed the idea of a living planet. Not anymore.
If Earth breathes, sweats and quakes — if it births zillions of organisms that ceaselessly devour, transfigure and replenish its air, water and rock — and if those creatures and their physical environments evolve in tandem, then why shouldn’t we think of our planet as alive?
Humans are the brain — the consciousness — of the planet. We are Earth made aware of itself. Viewed this way, our ecological responsibility could not be clearer. By fuming greenhouse gases, we have not simply changed the climate; we have critically wounded a global life form and severely disrupted its biological rhythms. No other member of this living assembly has our privileged perspective. No one else can see the sinews and vessels of our planetary body. Only we can choose to help keep Earth alive.
Gaia’s legacy can help us fulfill this responsibility. We can learn to recognize and amplify the planet’s innate climate-stabilizing processes. Earth has its own methods for storing carbon: A complex chain of chemical reactions involving plants, plankton and shellfish can lock atmospheric carbon in limestone. In addition to reducing carbon emissions, many Earth system scientists think we should study how to augment this natural sequestration and related processes.
In recent years the Amazon rain forest has endured unusually intense and frequent droughts, which some scientists have linked o deforestation and forest fires. It would be easy to compartmentalize these ecological shifts as local tragedies, but that detachment is an illusion. Seen through the lens of Gaia, the Amazon’s plight is the draining of our communal veins and arteries. We must learn to feel its thirst viscerally. “We are a part of this Earth and we cannot therefore consider our affairs in isolation,” Dr. Lovelock wrote. “We are so tied to the Earth that its chills or fevers are our chills and fevers also.”
More: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-earth-rain-forest-environment.html
Have you been smoking rocks?
 

Avro52

Time Out
Mar 19, 2020
3,635
5
36
Nuclear is by far the top of the heap for clean, scalable and reliable energy. They arent cheap to build. There isnt a fast buck to be made. There isnt instant eco-gratication that warms the green cockles of the heart as you drive to the Provincial Park on the hydro reservoir once a year.

I live between two nuke plants and I have no issue with them.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,506
14,322
113
Low Earth Orbit
I made good money in Uranium exploration. Saskatchewan has lots of it. Oodles and oodles and it's easy to get to. 50% ore bearing rock right at surface. There is enough to last us a very very long time.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,347
9,524
113
Washington DC
I made good money in Uranium exploration. Saskatchewan has lots of it. Oodles and oodles and it's easy to get to. 50% ore bearing rock right at surface. There is enough to last us a very very long time.
How many shitloads in an oodle?

Damn metric system always messes me up!
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Yep, funny how rational seems to be purely subjective in this case - not so much related to the 'scientific method' when the results don't support your position.


Person-kind surely has a lot to answer to
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,347
9,524
113
Washington DC
Yep, funny how rational seems to be purely subjective in this case - not so much related to the 'scientific method' when the results don't support your position.
In what way? Can you name me a case in history where rationality and science didn't take a back seat to politics and emotion?

This is the rule, not the exception.

Person-kind surely has a lot to answer to
QED. Answer to whom?