Carbon Emissions Show Biggest Jump Ever Recorded

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Dec 7, 4:31 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

Our societal systems need to mimic the properties
of naturally evolving systems. Which finds a way through
internal self correcting mechanisms to live within it's means.

The way nature does this, though, is that creatures that are going in
the wrong direction die.


But in a civilized system, only bad ideas, or bad actions
might be culled, not people. It's the cyclic process that
matters. Where the output is fed back into the input
in an iterative loop.

Where two opposing entities are /repetitively/ judged by an
independent third party.


Genetics v Mutation ...by natural selection
Rule of law v Freedom ...by elections
Producer v Consumer....by markets

Subcritical v Supercritical.....critically interacting.
Static v Chaotic .....dynamically interacting



Properly managed free market democracies best mimic
nature.

Yes, they do - on one level. Where there is feedback, they mimic
nature. Where there is no feedback - such as in the case of
environmental pollution, the costs of which are not automatically
directly borne by the polluter - they don't.

Like with HIV, it can be dormant for so long there's little
immediate feedback, and it can get out of control.
If the output doesn't feed back, it's not a naturally
evolving system, but a 'disease' like a dictatorship.

We need to find a way to restore the feedback so
such a damaged system can return to health.
For instance with earlier detection of the disease
or more legitimate elections. The point is that
nature shows the way to solve any real world
problem...by itself.



You need the government directly bludgeoning people into not polluting
or otherwise not causing externalities to have that part work. To
expect otherwise is to put ideology ahead of common sense.


The process works best when the various scales
of governing, from voter to local to national, are
fairly equal in power or the effect they have.




John Savard

On 12/9/11 8:48 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
So, basically, you don't understand science at all, much less the science
of climate change, and you're going with the guys who get the most money
for the predetermined answer to tell you what to think.


Ironic comment coming from a denier of the climate science, Marvin.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

See: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On Dec 9, 2:23*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 12/9/11 7:35 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The Dust Bowl was caused by a prolonged drought. *Otherwise it would
have happened much earlier. *It's not like that was the first year
they farmed the place, after all.

* *Had humans not ravished the land the dust bowl would not have happened
* *in the 30s.

ø Bull****, Worm.