sindark’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Giving testimony before a Congressional committee, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey argued that climate change cannot be a threat because god would not allow human beings to destroy the Earth: "Let me say I take it as an article of faith if the lord God almighty made the heavens and the Earth, and he made them to his satisfaction and it is quite pretentious of we little weaklings here on earth to think that we are going to destroy God’s creation." By comparison, some religious individuals and organizations (including the Vatican and Archbishop of Canterbury) have argued that dealing with climate change is a religious duty. Ignoring for the moment the question of whether any kind of supernatural beings exist, it does seem plausible to me that a fair number of people have a deep psychological assumption that something inherent to the universe would prevent the wholesale transformation of the Earth by human beings, at least if that transformation was a highly destructive one. For some, the balancing mechanism is a deity, for others ‘laws’ of technology or economics, and for others the (flawed) notion that natural systems are self-correcting. I recall a short story in which a man had the false belief that the fact that trains passing each other are drawn closer by the low pressure zone between them. He believed that the same phenomenon would help him stick to the train as he advanced up the outside of it. When it comes to environmental thinking, many people might be falsely comforted by similar misconceptions. Dealing with climate change probably requires us to collectively appreciate that we have the power to totally unbalance the natural world, to an extent that our ecological niche could be threatened. Furthermore, we are actually actively doing so. As the proverb says, if we don’t change course, we might end up where we’re headed. Incidentally, if there were an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god, it would be rather difficult to understand what it could have had in mind in setting up the relationship between fossil fuels, greenhouse gasses, and climate change. It’s a bit like leaving poisoned cupcakes out where your children will find them. Providing such a potent and easily accessible form of energy, but with dire long-term consequences that people took a while to figure out, seems like cruel game-playing. Of course, it is very hard to look at what happens in the world and believe that there is an omnipotent being out there looking out for us.On Religion gets behind fight against climate change posted 4 days, 19 hours ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  From Ottawa, Canada: Video: http://www.sindark.com/2009/10/24/fill-the-hill-2009-video/ Photos: http://www.sindark.com/2009/10/24/fill-the-hill-2009-photos/On Thousands gather worldwide on day of climate protests posted 2 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  This is an astonishing result, a year after the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report argued that “[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “[m]ost of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.” It is especially sad given the fact that the supposed scientific debate about the causes of climate change is largely mythical. Despite that, status quo supporting groups have apparently done an excellent job of misleading the public, perhaps aided by the increased concern that now exists about the state of the global economy. The basics of the situation are quite simple. No competent chemist would disagree that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Similarly, it is simple to observe that air with more CO2 blocks more outgoing infrared radiation, warming the planet. Both of these things are explained by chemical and physical theory, and observed in practice. Admittedly, it takes more work to understand why this warming could be dangerous; still, the scientific backing for that claim is incredibly robust and based on peer-reviewed scientific work done around the world over the course of many decades. Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done debunking climate change deniers, both by directly responding to misleading arguments and through other means. The terrifying thing here is that our actions now will have irrevocable consequences, largely beginning a few decades out, but continuing at least for thousands of years. The fact that so many people remain confused about climate – and very few support effort on the scale required to deal with it – is really bad news for future generations.On Poll finds sharp rise in global warming skepticism posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 31 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  One thing to remember is that many bike helmet companies offer a discount on crash replacement helmets. Stores will take them back and give you 30% or more off a new one. Hopefully, the old helmets are then partially or fully recycled.On Ask Umbra on bike helmets posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here is a link to some information on the big event in Ottawa, on Parliament Hill: http://www.sindark.com/2009/10/16/fill-the-hill-october-24th/ There are other events across Canada and around the world.On Get psyched for the Day of Climate Action -- with videos! posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 1 Response