Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Androcles a écrit :

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
Androcles a écrit :

Yep. We are part of Nature, whatever we do. We behave like locusts
and we'll die like locusts when the food runs out. As individuals we'll
all die anyway. A few will survive until the next swarm and it will go
on happening that way until Man becomes extinct like other species.
The insects will outlive us, Nature doesn't care.


Who is "we"?

"We" are the species homo sapiens sapiens, unless you happen
to be a different kind of ape.

There are two kinds of sapiens. The sapiens bankster and the sapiens
worker, as with many other species. It is the bankster that runs the
country.


You fail to see that there are *some* people that profit from the
pollution and will go on polluting as long as the *others* that
suffer from the consequences of the pollution will let them go
on.

You fail to see that Nature doesn't worry about profit or 200,000
dead from an earthquake or tsunami, even if those dead bodies
pollute the environment the vultures will profit from it. Nature
doesn't care.


Of course not. We should care about that. I did not ay anything else.


All technologies for reversing clima change are here. All technologies
for stopping pollution are here. But they are "too expensive" for the
people that make the decisions. Much cheaper for them is go on polluting
and profit from it.

All technologies for reversing population growth are here. All technologies
for genetic engineering are here. But the people that make the decisions
go on reproducing like locusts with their dull little selfish minds and
never consider the consequences of a population that doubles every
33 years, so in just one century it will be eight times greater.


As soon as development arrives to certain stage people stop reproducing
and start to make less than 2 kids per couple. This is closely related
to the emancipation of women. The more free women are, the less kids
they bring into this world.


Much cheaper for them is go on polluting and profit from it.

Yes, that's what "we" are doing. If there were half as many people
there would be half as much pollution, so the solution is to halt
the rate of increase.


Pollution is not related to people but to badly engineered production
process. Cars can be made of recyclable plastic and use electrical
batteries run from renewable energies. With the same population
pollution would decrease by a whooping amount.

It is the technology that is badly conceived not the people.

As a demonsration you can compare the investment done by the U.S. to
save the banks, and the investment to clean the production process.

Nature doesn't care about banks.


But ALL goverments do.

Problem is for us, we inherited a hierarchical social organization
from our ape-like ancestors. We are still living in a social
organization that is 100% ape-like, with the alpha ape down to
the omega ape. Democracy doesn't exist in their society.

Who are "us", and who are "their" (they)?

The people in power, those are THEY. The powerless, that's we, my dear.
You have nothing to say about your life. The people in power decide
about you and what job you get, what investments are done, if pollution
goes on or stops.


Let's have a war and kill off all the (some other ethnic group) that is
polluting "our" world, they are not really "us" and if "we" had their
land "we" could grow crops on it and double "our" population
ever 33 years instead of letting "them" do it.


That is just the wrong solution.


Problem is for us, we inherited a hierarchical social organization
from our locust-like ancestors. We are still living in a social
organization that is 100% locust-like, eating and reproducing as
fast as we can.

No. Population in germany is actually decreasing. And that is one
example. The more emancipated women are, the less kids they do.



Contraception doesn't exist in their society and
the Pope condemns it.

The pope exists because religion has always been at the side of the
powerful. The more humans are conceived, the cheaper they can buy labor.


The "good" book says "Go forth and
multiply" but it doesn't say when to stop.


Superstition (religion) is the problem here.


Now, we are confronted to the problem of developing a human
sociaty, and getting rid of our ape society before it is too late.

Don't worry, Nature will deal with us the way she deals with locusts.
When there is nothing left to eat we'll kill each other or starve,
a few scavengers will survive and they won't need banks or oil.


No. We will destroy this society and invent a better one, as we did
before, and we will do later again and again.

In europe 8 000 years ago we were starving because population growth had
used all available land. We burned some forest, made some 2 or 3
harvests andf went elsewhere... until there wasn't any elsewhere. The
good land was exhausted. Then, the crisis that started was QUITE
horrible.

It is in tha time that the wart axe was discovered and we started
killing ourselves.

But that was the solution of the inferior men. The superior men
realized that a new technology was required. They improved
agriculture, they domesticated plants like wheat and many others
and they SETTLED in the same place instead of just aiting for the forest
to recover.

Today, 1 billion people live in the same space that before sustained
only 100 000 or so.

Are we intelligent enough to be up to the challenge?

Of course not. The human locust is driven by its instincts,
intelligence has nothing to do with it.


No, we are completely different. You just are an example of the
cynism that corrodes our culture today.

I have confidence in the destiny of mankind.

I do not know, but I am doing my best to give mankind a chance
of surviving.

Too late, the human locust has swarmed and it is hungry. Donate
money for that little girl in that distant land, that she can have clean
water and an education; in under 15 years she'll have whelped two
more hungry mouths holding out for aid, and it is your instinct to
aid her.


No, if she is emancipated, has a job and a perspective she will
postpone the date when she makes kids. If she has social security for
the old age she will not NEED kids for her old age.

You just do not see WHY people make kids. In countries where there is no
retirement, kids are the only security for your old days.


jacob

A member of Greenpeace since 1997.

A futile pursuit. Hug all the trees you want to, the land will be
cleared for farming until there is no land left, then we kill each
other in earnest. And we are very good at it, we've had plenty
of practice.


Not everyone is like you. Bt I do not even believe that you ARE as you
say you are. How many kids did YOU manage to do?

A friend

J. Clarke a écrit :
On 4/2/2010 5:05 AM, jacob navia wrote:
Yousuf Khan a écrit :
BBC News - Today - Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'
"Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory,
has said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth
is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth
will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable
climate change. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today...00/8594561.stm

Consequence:

We can go on polluting like before, it is "too late" to do
anything about it.

I am sure that coal companies, oil companies, and many others
will appreciate that.

Until something is done about China, there's not much point in "fixing"
it anywhere else anyway, and in terms of practical politics, nobody is
going to do anything about China.


yes, we can stop buying their goods.

yes, we can put taxes on pollution to countries that pollute like mad.

yes, we can stop delocalizing to china to pollute at no cost.

There are PLENTY of measures that we can do.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
Androcles a écrit :

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
Androcles a écrit :

Yep. We are part of Nature, whatever we do. We behave like locusts
and we'll die like locusts when the food runs out. As individuals we'll
all die anyway. A few will survive until the next swarm and it will go
on happening that way until Man becomes extinct like other species.
The insects will outlive us, Nature doesn't care.


Who is "we"?

"We" are the species homo sapiens sapiens, unless you happen
to be a different kind of ape.

There are two kinds of sapiens. The sapiens bankster and the sapiens
worker, as with many other species. It is the bankster that runs the
country.

This is getting away from Lovelock and moving toward politics.


You fail to see that there are *some* people that profit from the
pollution and will go on polluting as long as the *others* that
suffer from the consequences of the pollution will let them go
on.

You fail to see that Nature doesn't worry about profit or 200,000
dead from an earthquake or tsunami, even if those dead bodies
pollute the environment the vultures will profit from it. Nature
doesn't care.


Of course not. We should care about that. I did not ay anything else.

Then of course I do not fail to see some people profit from pollution,
I did not ay that I did and resent you aying that I do.



All technologies for reversing clima change are here. All technologies
for stopping pollution are here. But they are "too expensive" for the
people that make the decisions. Much cheaper for them is go on polluting
and profit from it.

All technologies for reversing population growth are here. All
technologies
for genetic engineering are here. But the people that make the decisions
go on reproducing like locusts with their dull little selfish minds and
never consider the consequences of a population that doubles every
33 years, so in just one century it will be eight times greater.


As soon as development arrives to certain stage people stop reproducing
and start to make less than 2 kids per couple. This is closely related
to the emancipation of women. The more free women are, the less kids
they bring into this world.


Baloney. My younger daughter has three because she chose to and
is free to choose. However, she is not irresponsible, my grandson
has Down's Syndrome and will not reproduce. My neighbour has 20
grandchildren and is quite free to do as she pleases. She is irresponsible.


Much cheaper for them is go on polluting and profit from it.

Yes, that's what "we" are doing. If there were half as many people
there would be half as much pollution, so the solution is to halt
the rate of increase.


Pollution is not related to people but to badly engineered production
process. Cars can be made of recyclable plastic and use electrical
batteries run from renewable energies. With the same population
pollution would decrease by a whooping amount.

It is the technology that is badly conceived not the people.

Baloney. Shopping bags, milk bottles, shampoo bottles and beer containers
can all be re-used, the people won't do it and the people do the littering.
This is getting away from Lovelock.

As a demonsration you can compare the investment done by the U.S. to
save the banks, and the investment to clean the production process.

Nature doesn't care about banks.


But ALL goverments do.

This is a sci. newsgroup, you need one of the many .government
newsgroups for your soapbox.


Problem is for us, we inherited a hierarchical social organization
from our ape-like ancestors. We are still living in a social
organization that is 100% ape-like, with the alpha ape down to
the omega ape. Democracy doesn't exist in their society.

Who are "us", and who are "their" (they)?

The people in power, those are THEY. The powerless, that's we, my dear.
You have nothing to say about your life. The people in power decide
about you and what job you get, what investments are done, if pollution
goes on or stops.

Vote them out then, and get yourself elected. Go knock on doors.
This is getting well away from Lovelock and into your politicking.


Let's have a war and kill off all the (some other ethnic group) that is
polluting "our" world, they are not really "us" and if "we" had their
land "we" could grow crops on it and double "our" population
ever 33 years instead of letting "them" do it.


That is just the wrong solution.

Then you provide the right one. You be the one to pass a law limiting
Chinese, Indian, Russian, Mexican and American women to just one
child (two enforces sterilization), and see how many votes you can win.
Go on, take away their freedom to reproduce.



Problem is for us, we inherited a hierarchical social organization
from our locust-like ancestors. We are still living in a social
organization that is 100% locust-like, eating and reproducing as
fast as we can.

No.

Yes.


Population in germany is actually decreasing. And that is one
example. The more emancipated women are, the less kids they do.

Population in the USA is actually increasing. They tell me that's a free
country, a democracy .



Contraception doesn't exist in their society and
the Pope condemns it.

The pope exists because religion has always been at the side of the
powerful. The more humans are conceived, the cheaper they can buy labor.

Then be powerful instead of whining about it. Go get yourself voted into
power.

The "good" book says "Go forth and
multiply" but it doesn't say when to stop.


Superstition (religion) is the problem here.

Ok... so join the "Ban Religion" party. Take the right to worship
out of your country, Russia did. See how many votes you'll get.
You'll find those powerful people will get beheaded if they tried it,
the French and Russion Revolutions were a reality that got rid of
its powerful.


Now, we are confronted to the problem of developing a human
sociaty, and getting rid of our ape society before it is too late.

Don't worry, Nature will deal with us the way she deals with locusts.
When there is nothing left to eat we'll kill each other or starve,
a few scavengers will survive and they won't need banks or oil.


No. We will destroy this society and invent a better one, as we did
before, and we will do later again and again.

Who are "we"?
Count me out, I'm not part of your "we".


In europe 8 000 years ago we were starving because population growth had
used all available land. We burned some forest, made some 2 or 3
harvests andf went elsewhere... until there wasn't any elsewhere. The
good land was exhausted. Then, the crisis that started was QUITE
horrible.

It is in tha time that the wart axe was discovered and we started killing
ourselves.

But that was the solution of the inferior men. The superior men
realized that a new technology was required. They improved
agriculture, they domesticated plants like wheat and many others
and they SETTLED in the same place instead of just aiting for the forest
to recover.

Today, 1 billion people live in the same space that before sustained
only 100 000 or so.


In 100 years there will be 8 billion in the same space, and there isn't
a thing you can do about it. The locusts have swarmed.
You can't even get yourself voted into power by banning religion
and limiting childbirth, so you'd better try leading a revolution instead.
Wanna be Castro, Lenin, Robespierre?


Are we intelligent enough to be up to the challenge?

Of course not. The human locust is driven by its instincts,
intelligence has nothing to do with it.


No, we are completely different. You just are an example of the
cynism that corrodes our culture today.

Yes, I'm a cynic. See if you are too.
http://www.i-cynic.com/


A brief history of cynicism.

Cynicism is a Greek invention, like the Doric column or the gyro sandwich.
The first Cynics (we capitalize the name when we're talking about the
ancient
ones) were students of a now-obscure philosopher named Antisthenes, who in
turn was a student of the illustrious Socrates. Like Socrates, the Cynics
believed that virtue was the greatest good. But they took it a step further
than the old master, who would merely challenge unsuspecting folks to
good-natured debates and let their own foolishness trip them up.

The Cynics were more blunt when it came to exposing foolishness. They'd hang
out in the streets like a pack of dogs ("Cynic" comes from the Greek word
for dog), watch the passing crowd, and ridicule anyone who seemed pompous,
pretentious, materialistic or downright wicked. Fiercely proud of their
independence, they led disciplined and virtuous lives. The most famous of
the ancient Cynics was Diogenes, who reportedly took up residence in a tub
to demonstrate his freedom from material wants. This cranky
street-philosopher would introduce himself by saying, "I am Diogenes the
dog. I nuzzle the kind, bark at the greedy and bite scoundrels." He'd use a
lantern by daylight, explaining that he was searching for an honest man.
Even Alexander the Great didn't escape unscathed. When the young conqueror
found Diogenes sitting in the marketplace and asked how he could help him,
the old philosopher replied that "you can step out of my sunlight."

As you might expect, the ancient Cynics' habit of ridiculing their fellow
citizens didn't win them many friends. People generally don't like to hear
the hard truth about themselves, especially in public. But the Cynics felt
they were on a mission from Zeus. As the Stoic philosopher Epictetus wrote
several centuries later, "A Cynic is a spy who aims to discover what things
are friendly or hostile to man; after making accurate observations, he then
comes back and reports the truth."

Cynics have been making those observations and reporting the truth ever
since. The ancient Cynics have turned to dust, but their successors have
carried on nobly in their spirit. Great names like Juvenal, Rabelais, Swift,
Voltaire and Mark Twain have used the classic Cynics' tools -- bitter irony,
biting sarcasm and mirthful ridicule -- to expose the follies of their times
as well as the timeless foibles of humankind. If you consider yourself a
cynic, take pride in your heritage; the world needs you now more than ever.

What cynicism means today, and why cynics need a sanctuary.

Telling the truth can get you into hot water. As much as the world needs its
cynics, it still doesn't REALIZE that it needs them. Cynics today are
habitually castigated by politicians, corporate chieftains and other
productive citizens with tidy lawns; they know that we're on to them, so
they
lump us with the lowest of the low. We're generally cast as the heavies in
the black hats, counterproductive miscreants who broil babies when we're not
spray-painting obscenities on public monuments. We're portrayed as masters
of chicanery and intrigue, untrusting and untrustworthy. Since we're neither
leaders nor followers, we're expected to get out of the way -- and the
tidy-lawn folks get furious when we don't. Nobody loves a cynic, except
maybe another cynic.

Even the dictionary definition of a cynic makes us look like scoundrels:

"a faultfinding captious critic; esp. one who believes that human
conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest."

Aside from casting us in a negative light, Webster & Co. miss the point by
half a mile. Where's the hint of lost ideals, the rueful humor, the wounded
childlike soul that lurks behind the cynic's sarcasm?

What a sadly maligned and misunderstood tribe we are! Cynicism, after all,
springs not from cruelty or viciousness, but from precisely the opposite: a
fatal love of virtue. If we were mere realists, we'd have no need for
cynicism; the world would never disappoint us because we'd expect so little
of it. But the best cynics are still idealists under their scarred hides. We
wanted the world to be a better place, and we can't shrug off the
disappointment when it lets us down. Our cynicism gives us the painful power
to behold life shorn of its sustaining illusions. Thus my own definition of
a cynic:

"an idealist whose rose-colored glasses have been removed, snapped in two
and stomped into the ground, immediately improving his vision."

If we were activists, we'd do something constructive about our
discontentment. But we're smart enough to know that we won't prevail, and
probably a little too lazy to attempt any labor that's predestined to fail.
So we retaliate with our special brand of wounded wit. If we can't defeat
our
oppressors, at least we can mock them in good fellowship. That's about as
much justice as a cynic can expect.

But I'm also a scientist (and a realist) and you are in the wrong newsgroup,
corroding my scientific culture with your political crap.

I have confidence in the destiny of mankind.

Uh huh...


I do not know, but I am doing my best to give mankind a chance
of surviving.

Too late, the human locust has swarmed and it is hungry. Donate
money for that little girl in that distant land, that she can have clean
water and an education; in under 15 years she'll have whelped two
more hungry mouths holding out for aid, and it is your instinct to
aid her.


No, if she is emancipated, has a job and a perspective she will
postpone the date when she makes kids. If she has social security for the
old age she will not NEED kids for her old age.

You just do not see WHY people make kids. In countries where there is no
retirement, kids are the only security for your old days.

Naive...

jacob

A member of Greenpeace since 1997.

A futile pursuit. Hug all the trees you want to, the land will be
cleared for farming until there is no land left, then we kill each
other in earnest. And we are very good at it, we've had plenty
of practice.


Not everyone is like you. Bt I do not even believe that you ARE as you
say you are. How many kids did YOU manage to do?

Two, and you are polluting my science newsgroup with your politicking.
Step out of my sunlight.


A friend

from http://darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html

....

The first conclusion: Humans are superorganisms. Planetary biospheres
can also be named the superorganisms, if we will find some proves to
the last missing property, required by the definition of the living
organism, - the ability of reproduction.

....

The second conclusion: Official science persistently denies the Steady
State models of Universe and the Panspermia hypothesis, despite the
fact that there are a lot of observations and physical evidences of
these theories. This leads me to the thought that the official science
is some organ of our living Biosphere, which has genetic innate
property, aimed at implementing of the suicidal reproduction of
biospheres.

The third conclusion: Scientists, who are interested in the launch of
the Large Hadron Collider, can be named "the curiosity cells" of our
Biosphere. Scientists, who are crying everywhere about the possible
global risks, can be named “the good reason cells” of our Biosphere.
If the first large group of physics will win, then our Biosphere will
die, as a thoughtless female-animal. If the second very small group
will win, then Biospher will survive and look like a reasonable,
thinking female, able to anticipate the danger.

The forth conclusion: The mechanism for interstellar panspermia is
absolutely clear; it is the explosion of the planet, where the
biosphere had grown to the reproducing age. The method of biosphere's
reproduction is similar to that of exploding cucumber. The more
powerful explosion, - the more reliable reproduction.

Possible detonators of global explosion:

1. Collision of particles with the energy about 1 TeV or higher
per particle.

2. Creating of Bose-Einstein Condensate in the laboratories,
experimenting with the matter under extremely low temperatures.

3. Underground tests of nuclear weapons, which can lead to
thermonuclear detonation of geological stratum of such nuclear fuel,
as KH.

4. Creating the transuranium elements.

How it must look in order to better preserve the seeds of life.
With some part of fantasy.

Magnetic hole absorbs the inner part of our planet. Planet self-
contracts. Oceans cover the mainland by water. Magnetic hole is
growing exponentially and, finally, a huge explosion occurs, which
sends the shell of the Earth's into outer space. All of us, with
grass, cats, fish, tadpoles fly, covered by ocean water, with the
speed of ten times more, than the speed Voyagers. Due to the reduction
of pressure the water boils, transforming into foam, and soon it
freezes. Thus the comets are formed. The temperatures are about
"minus" 150-250 degrees Centigrade. Flies and tadpoles in comets are
in a state of hibernation.

Finally, some comet enters some Earth-like platen’s atmosphere. The
comet splits, and its icy parts drop into warm lakes. There the
comet’s parts are melting. Flies wake up and fly away, some fishes and
tadpoles, too, wake up, and swim away.

The human will appear on this planet on the next stage, when n’th
comet will arrive to this planet, when comet’s shell will melt under
the rays of that star, when human's DNA molecules will subside to that
planet.



The cosmic space has a huge amount of organic substance.

Each year, only in our Galaxy, containing approximately 150 billion
stars, from one to ten civilizations die. Mourning marches, that are,
nova and supernova explosions, play several times frequently. Part of
the nova stars exert repeated explosions. The cause is clear -
magnetic hole, reaching a mass roughly equal to 1/20 of solar masses,
transform into a black hole. Their radii at this mass are equal, and
the transition is accompanied by explosion. Therefore, the Sun will be
eaten in twenty receptions, accompanied by explosions that would occur
with intervals of several tens of years. Supernovae are exploding at
once, because they have thin shells, and magnetic holes fail in
supernovae’s rarefied central parts.


....
from from http://darkenergy.narod.ru/civilen.html

On Apr 1, 2:54*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
wrote:
* Don't mock Yousuf, he knows better.

* It's the Beeb that's Liberally stoopid.

* Mark L. Fergerson

The point Lovelock was trying to make is that there's no point in
blaming ourselves for bringing the temperature of the Earth up, and
there's even less point in trying to reverse it.


exactly.

it was fun until it became, a problem.
reverse can be fun again if it is applied to another spacetime
frame of mind!

r.y

hanson a écrit :
Class 3 enviro "jacob navia" wrote:
[snipped his green **** because he brags that]
[I, jacob navia, am] "A member of Greenpeace since 1997"

hanson wrote:
ahahahAHAHA... so, you splenid class 3 enviro, you poor
*******,

[snip]

To be able yo insult me, *I* would *first* need to give
any importance to what you say...

Yours sincerely

jacob navia
Member of Greenpeace.

"jacob navia" wrote in message
...
hanson a écrit :
Class 3 enviro "jacob navia" wrote:
[snipped his green **** because he brags that]
[I, jacob navia, am] "A member of Greenpeace since 1997"

hanson wrote:
ahahahAHAHA... so, you splenid class 3 enviro, you poor
*******,

[snip]

To be able yo insult me, *I* would *first* need to give
any importance to what you say...

Yours sincerely

jacob navia
Member of Greenpeace.

For greenpease to have any importance, *you* would *first*
need to put ham and potatoes on my plate. Still loitering around
sci newsgroups with your political agenda, naive navia?

On Apr 4, 6:52Â*am, jacob navia wrote:
hanson a écrit :

Class 3 enviro "jacob navia" wrote:
[snipped his green **** because he brags that]
[I, jacob navia, am] "A member of Greenpeace since 1997"

hanson wrote:
ahahahAHAHA... so, you splenid class 3 enviro, you poor
*******,

[snip]

To be able yo insult me, *I* would *first* need to give
any importance to what you say...

Yours sincerely

jacob navia
Member of Greenpeace.

Ø Your sig tells it all
Typical environmentalist fool.

ø The issue is really irrelevant.
Nobody can control the wind
Nobody can control the rain or snow
Nobody (collectively) can control climate.
Global temps are within natural variations.
Oceans heating are a prelude to glaciation.


 Get used to it!!

— —
| In real science the burden of proof is always
| on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far
| neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
| iota of valid data for global warming nor have
| they provided data that climate change is being
| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes

it is manifest to everybody, since he knew that
Earth was round -- after, "hey, the *sky* is round" --
that humans are the greatest effectors of climate. now,
this does not mean that "global" warming is not oxymoronic,
nonsequiter, or misnomered.

| effected by commerce and industry, and not by
| natural causes

thus:
except for "bowshocks" of the observer's spaceboat;
there is no vacuum!

He showed that the speed of light would be independent of the
speed of a moving observer.

thus:
most of Russell's paradoxes are just illinguistic;
viz, lack of proper verbal tense:
If I had said that I'll have cut my hair, I'd been lying;
I went to a barber in the next village!
Russell wrote an article in the *Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists*, proposing that
the US should bomb the SU "into the stone age,"
when we first made the H-bomb; refs.:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

thus:
well, if matter is "made of" energy,
then its internal motions must be limited
to the "speed" of light, in hours per parsec,
at relatavistical speeds, especially in one direction.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044

thus:
so, if the lightwave has the "shape of a wave"
-- like, give an example of an actual shape --
what is the need of Newton's God-am corpuscle?
anyway, it is detected as "electrron-voltage," eV;
it is just your interpretation, as its quasi-restmass.
A photon is detected as a quantum of matter. Hence the wave-

thus:
make a prediction of your "theory," bonehead. other than that,
I give "up" with your linguistic progress;
no-one is to be blamed for "English as a one-dot-five language!"
read more »

thus:
snippled ad verbatim ad vomitorium
true, water vapor is the #1 glass-house gas
-- and clouds are hardest to model in simulacra -- but
CO2 is the most effective gas after that incontrovertible factor
of hydrology (ice, water, vapor, plasma below crust and
above ionosphere) in the Anthopocene.

thus:
poor, 47-year-old Minkowski & his silly drek
about phase-space, and then he died --
the great geometer, Minkowski, temporarily ennobled
as a lightcone-head, thanks to SR Fundamentalism (yeah --
let's reify *this* math .-)
please, ask, if
"light slows in a [knewtonian] grav.field,
what does it do with the index of refraction?"
Of couse, if you don't understand Minkowski space time in SR,

thus:
yeah, in a pressurized cabin.
2 eggs.

thus:
the geometrical term, dilation, is perfectly acceptable, because
of the habitual use of Minkowski diagrams;
Death to the lightcone -- long-live the lightcone-heads!
I do recall reading of some testable stuff,
in the argumentum over Smolin's silly book
(his _Three Toads to QG_ is much less political). so,
what is it that is testabley false --
what's BSRT?
This is provably crap by empirical falsification on a lab bench,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

thus:
so, what about the anti-neutrons, Fitz-whits?

thus:
did it say, burning-up of quarks?... as far as I can tell,
quarks are just the symmetry of rather fundamental particles;
to wit, a trigon can be considered minimal structure
(viz-a-vu Are Buckafka Fullofit .-)

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Ice Age Beauties!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

On Apr 1, 8:09*am, Yousuf Khan wrote:
BBC News - Today - Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'
"Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has
said it is too late to try and save the planet.

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is
a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will
take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate
change. "http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

By definition, life consumes resources and produces waste.

All life forms change their environment.

These changes inevitably make the environment more hostile to the life-
form's survival.

When this happens life forms adapt or they die.

I and my clan adapt.

If Professor Lovelock has forgotten to be adaptable, he and his kind
will die.

I don't have a problem with that.

The planet will continue for billions of years.

The planet will *change* noticeably over billions of years.

The planet will survive. It is not in danger. There is no need to
"save" it.

Only life forms that do not adapt are in danger, as has always been
the case.

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA