Lenoxus’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Re Le Vidiot

  I admire your beautiful sense of our tragic world -- I just wish you didn't take so much of it, especially the tragedy, for granted.

  "Tsunami's, hurricanes, cylones, droughts, floods, volcanoes, earthquakes - we've seen it all before, and invented quite a few handy mechanisms to predict, preserve, and restore before, during, and after these tragic events."

  Why is climatology not allowed to contribute to those mechanisms of prediction? It's mighty peculiar to respond to the thousands of scientists saying "Something must be done to prevent rapid climate shift!" with "Sorry, but humankind is perfectly good at predicting and solving these kinds of problems on its own, thank you very much." I'm reminded of how children, when told by their parents to put on their shoes already, say "I am, I am!"

  "Since our history of climate related tragedies is hard to refute, per another of Coby's thinly argued, anti-skeptic talking point articles, we are left to predict an ever-more-terrifying RATE of climate change, as the penultimate bogey-man of our projected future.  As if 300,000 almost instantly dead in our recent tsunami isn't dramatic / scary enough. No, the future is now, folks, and always has been (sort of like hydrogen fuel cells... they're the energy of the future... and always will be)."

  Why is this some kind of fight between the dead of the past and the dead of the future? Does the death toll of past disasters, both weather-related and otherwise, somehow use up the possible future deaths? An extremely peculiar and crotchety argument, like being angry at the universe.

  European civilization has, in the past, managed to pull out of (with a very dwindled population) a freaking Black Plague -- one which, in its own way, helped foster the Renaissance. Does this mean that we should deliberately ignore the WHO every time they tell us to vaccinate against this year's batch of flu? Indeed, our species (if not individual humans) probably will survive even the worst both ourselves and nature have to pit against us -- that's how natural selection works. Don't you think we can settle for more than that, though?

  Incidentally, scientists are not "left to predict" such a rate -- the rate of change has been the point all along.

  "That internet thing Al Gore invented has worked out pretty well for many of us. Maybe it's time our idle er, idol Al got to work on inventing the magic energy source to save us all.  Or is Al too busy building up his carbon credit business, now that he has so succesfully built the hype necessary to drive its revenues."

  Oops, just lost my respect for a minute there. I'm just as happy to bash Mr. Gore as anyone, but I'm afraid that never has and never will change any of the scientific evidence or understanding of global warming. Not even if he drank the blood of kittens! Incroyable, non?

  As for "magic," well... does it really have to be a choice between using petroleum until it runs out, or using magic? Why, exactly?On The problem is not how high the temperature may go, but how fast it is changing posted 1 year, 9 months ago 14 Responses