NASA, liberal news media pretend El Nino is a bad thing

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:28:50 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Global warming is potentially
civilization destroying, and that's a simple fact.

It's true a lot would be destroyed if we ended up like Venus.

But the real danger is simply what will happen before events prove that global
warming is real. That won't even be New York being inundated. No, just mass
starvation in far-off places like Southeast Asia.

Stuff that, sadly, our societies don't really care about - but which will warn
them to stop the nonsense before it's their turn.

I'm not expecting civilization to be destroyed. Just millions of innocent
people dying.

John Savard

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:15:19 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:28:50 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Global warming is potentially
civilization destroying, and that's a simple fact.

It's true a lot would be destroyed if we ended up like Venus.

That would be species destroying. But it's pretty unlikely that will
happen.

But the real danger is simply what will happen before events prove that global
warming is real. That won't even be New York being inundated. No, just mass
starvation in far-off places like Southeast Asia.

Stuff that, sadly, our societies don't really care about - but which will warn
them to stop the nonsense before it's their turn.

I'm not expecting civilization to be destroyed. Just millions of innocent
people dying.

I think major social collapse is a very likely scenario. Our social
structures are very fragile. The U.S. is already substantially
non-democratic, and it's only a small step to a despotic government
form. That might take nothing more than the destruction of a major
city to floods or involvement in a major resource war after a period
of severe drought.

Humans will survive, but not necessarily our current governments.

On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 1:15:21 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:28:50 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Global warming is potentially
civilization destroying, and that's a simple fact.

It's true a lot would be destroyed if we ended up like Venus.

But the real danger is simply what will happen before events prove that global
warming is real. That won't even be New York being inundated. No, just mass
starvation in far-off places like Southeast Asia.

Stuff that, sadly, our societies don't really care about - but which will warn
them to stop the nonsense before it's their turn.

I'm not expecting civilization to be destroyed. Just millions of innocent
people dying.

John Savard

Those starving people won't go away. They'll come over here by the boatload, and there will be no way to stop them short of killing them where they land.

We already made one huge mistake when the evangelical right refused to allow foreign aid to include simple birth control. The result - 3rd world countries in Africa, Central America where the birthrate is triple what it is in the developed world.
Central American children risking their lives over thousand miles to get to our border, and then getting turned away. Right Wing "boneheads" aren't good at math. When 1 begets 5, 5 beget 25, 25 beget 125 .. pretty soon you have a lot of mouths to feed. From places where food doesn't grow very well because all the best land belongs to Chiquita Banana.

On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:15:19 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
But the real danger is simply what will happen before events prove
that global
warming is real. That won't even be New York being inundated. No,
just mass
starvation in far-off places like Southeast Asia.

These place may be far-off from your perspective, but they'll
certainly not far-off for the people who actually live there...

And what about, say, New Orleans? Do you consider that far-off (and
therefore not worthy of attention) too?

On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 2:44:31 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:

I think a good general approach is that people should live in a way
that makes them happy without making others unhappy,

And, obviously, highly-paid CEOs make YOU unhappy, even when that is none of YOUR business, right, peterson?

and that may
certainly involve having a large carbon footprint.

Then your larger-than-necessary carbon footprint is not affecting anyone else negatively???


The moral failure
in my eyes isn't the carbon footprint itself, but having one larger
than necessary.

One doesn't need to have a private pool.

For instance, if you can afford a large heated pool,
you may have a choice of heating it with fossil fuels or with the Sun.

One doesn't need to have a private pool.

In the absence of other factors, choosing the former is a poor moral
choice. Choosing to have the pool probably isn't.

The pool requires fossil fuels in massive amounts as things now stand, for its construction and maintenance. It is a poor moral choice by your standards, especially since one doesn't need to have a private pool.

On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 07:17:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:

And, obviously, highly-paid CEOs make YOU unhappy, even when that is none of YOUR business, right, peterson?

I have no problem with highly paid CEOs.

and that may
certainly involve having a large carbon footprint.

Then your larger-than-necessary carbon footprint is not affecting anyone else negatively???

If it is larger than necessary, than I consider it a poor ethical
choice.

One doesn't need to have a private pool.

People should try to base their existence on what they want, not what
they need.

One doesn't need to have a private pool.

But one might want to have such a pool. Nothing wrong with that.

The pool requires fossil fuels in massive amounts as things now stand, for its construction and maintenance.

No, it doesn't. Even a very large pool can have an extremely low
carbon footprint, in terms of construction, maintenance, and
operation.

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 4:57:50 AM UTC-7, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 11:15:19 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:
But the real danger is simply what will happen before events prove
that global
warming is real. That won't even be New York being inundated. No,
just mass
starvation in far-off places like Southeast Asia.

These place may be far-off from your perspective, but they'll
certainly not far-off for the people who actually live there...

And what about, say, New Orleans? Do you consider that far-off (and
therefore not worthy of attention) too?

I'm not claiming those far-off places are _not_ worthy of attention. They
certainly are. What I am saying is that they might not *get* the attention they
need; the people in countries that could make a difference to their fate may
not care enough to let their countries make the effort.

John Savard