Some guy and a camera 6

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:52 am
   13 Jun 2007

   "homecooked"?Perhaps, but it seems elegant enough.  You do not always need state-of-the-art labs and computers to do good thinking.  Mr. Midwest Accent's two bad scenarios are credible.  He perhaps soft-pedals the "global depression" in the "yes action" column, but not in a significant way.  And he does not say nearly enough about the biodiversity catastrophe in the "no action" column.
   On the other hand, that was not "the most frightening video" I have ever seen.  And I am not especially inspired to start forwarding it around.
   
   Chickens are our cousins!
   
   So are other sensitive animals!
   
   Enough is enough!
   
   No more factory farms!

   Permalink

2. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 4:22 am
   13 Jun 2007

   More Money, More Problems
   
   There are some flaws in the reasoning here although Mr. Game Theory says "he cannot see any".
   The problem is that if allowed to, I can make a matrix for any world-destroying scenario that I want to.
   In this case it's the logic chain of
   if(GW)->Catastrophe
   But why stop there....what about asteroids?   What about population (even without global warming)?   What about the Rapture?   Or even, what about Svensmark's Cosmic Ray theory?   Suppose it's right -- should we use every expenditure to create a cosmic ray shield?   But how can we when we've shut down all our coal fired plants and don't have enough electricity to build it?
   Eventually you will have to expend all resources to combat any problem that someone posits has a chance of "destroying the world".
   And so on -- you can't simply make a chart like this and then drop an element in the (1,1) cell that is end of the world entirely...because then it's just the same AGW argument regurgitated as "math".
   
   
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 4:23 am
   13 Jun 2007

   Pardon Me, Henrik
   
   I wrote:
   should we use every expenditure to create a cosmic ray shield
   What I should have said is:
   to create a cosmic ray gun to cause low level cloud formation and reduce global heating.
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

4. 

   Gary Gifford Posted 12:10 pm
   13 Jun 2007

   Somewhat convincingThe basic arguement makes sense.  Its very simplistic and would be a good conversation starter with someone who's on the fence about doing the right thing about AGW, but beyond that, it doesn't provide many answers.
   Lots of trolls on that site....
   
   Cheers,
   
   Gary Gifford

   Permalink

5. 

   Sam Wells Posted 3:06 pm
   13 Jun 2007

   Right on GaryDoes anybody else feel like there's a core group of folks that comment on Grist, and that outsiders have like a heck of a time and would rather just lurk?  
   
   
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

6. 

   Drison Posted 6:28 pm
   13 Jun 2007

   lurkersI lurk for the most part but lurkers are learning from regular commenters debate. I comment only when I have a question or a thought I would like to see more debate on. Most of the regular commenters have much more to add to the debate than I however.

   Permalink