Comments maladapted has made

  • "For God's sake, why don't you folks discuss the content of these E Mails?" Well, for one thing, nothing in the stolen emails affects any of the scientific findings. For another, they're being massively over-discussed all over the blogosphere -- on Real Climate, there are over 1400 comments. This is nothing like the Adlai Stevenson moment the deniers are hyping. It's more like a Colin Powell moment, there really aren't any weapons of mass Socialism. It's a glimpse into the way real science works, and some scientists are revealed to be human beings -- shocking! Nevertheless, AGW is still supported by multiple lines of evidence, and it's going to take a lot more than some candid talk between competitive colleagues to overthrow the consensus. But don't take my word for it, take it from the heroic climate scientists at Real Climate.On ‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science posted 5 days, 6 hours ago 35 Responses

  • "Miami is going to be safe!"

    If you believe that, I've got a great deal on some Miami oceanfront property for you.  A sound long-term investment!  I wonder how many of those 700 "dissenting scientists" are buying oceanfront property?

     

    On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 7 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

  • "I don't want to pay more for anything, so I'll believe anyone who tells me I don't have to, and ignore anyone who says I do."

    On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 7 months, 1 week ago 25 Responses

  • Heh, heh -- you've got stones, posting those tired denier talking points on this venue, I'll give you that.  Deniers llike you give yourselves away though, by demanding "proof" before you're willing to internalize the true cost of your lifestyle.  "I don't want to pay more for anything, so AGW can't be true!"   Unfortunately, you and your fellow deniers will probably succeed in postponing any meaningful abatement efforts until Miami is underwater.   Human nature just isn't up to this challenge, and you're a perfect example.

     

    On EPA says greenhouse-gas emissions a threat to public health posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 25 Responses

  • Certainly the i=PAT equation is flawed, if it's considered to be a complete theory.  I had assumed Grist readers would recognize it as an heuristic, i.e. a starting point for analysis in a systems framework.   Assuredly, we all know that access to global resources is unequal; that's implicit in "per capita".  A more elaborate version of the model might attempt to account for unequal consumption within the Affluence term.

    In any case, the scope of Umbra's column was "simple things all environmentally concerned individuals should do".   Many of us have tried to reduce our levels of consumption, or at least to consume what we do more efficiently.  Those who choose to have children, however, should recognize that you are responsible for your children's consumption, and your grandchildren if any, and indeed all your future descendants.  That is why limiting your reproduction dwarfs anything you do about your own current consumption.


    Mal.

     

    On Umbra advises on population posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

  • It's useful to model Humanity's aggregate impact on the global environment as "I=PAT" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_PAT):


    Human Impact (I) on the environment equals the product of population (P), affluence (A: consumption per capita) and technology (T: environmental impact per unit of consumption).

    From this, it's clear that reducing the size of any of the three factors can contribute to reducing the aggregate impact. As individuals, we can choose to address any or all of them.  We can limit our personal reproduction, to zero if we wish; we can limit our consumption by choosing to live simply; and we can use technology to minimize the impact of our chosen level of consumption.  I'm sure we can all agree that Grist.org is a great clearinghouse of information on ways individuals can address their personal A and T. 

    For myself, I've chosen to ensure that my personal contribution to future P will be zero -- hence my Darwinian nom de web 8^).  I'll not judge anyone who chooses otherwise, in hopes that I may not be judged in turn.

    Mal.

    On Umbra advises on population posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago 35 Responses

  • gardens as social venues

    It's happening, Ted.  This is why I voted for Will Allen for Top eco-hero of 2008.  

    MalOn USDA's People's Garden may not be all it's cracked up to be posted 9 months, 1 week ago 3 Responses

  • People as power sources

    Hmm, Duracell makes the Coppertop battery, don't they?  Puts me in mind of a movie series.

    MalOn Power from stationary bikes to light up Times Square New Year's sign posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

  • re: If you care about the planet...

    You'll die and leave no descendants. Period.On Umbra on homegrown meat posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 33 Responses

  • Everyone has a footprint

    Whether or not to have children is a complicated and highly personal decision, to be sure.  It's transparently self-serving, however, to believe that bringing more people into the world is a "contribution to the environment". So is the belief that the world needs more middle-class Americans. To adopt a child who was born poor, and raise it to have as small a footprint as feasible, is admirable in many ways; but the only way to reduce one's footprint to zero is to die childless.On Umbra on small steps with big impacts posted 1 year, 1 month ago 18 Responses

  • thumbs up for Medicine Man and Ferngully

    I'll add my support for those two, as my favorite cinematic pleas for rainforest protection.

    MalOn 15 Green Movies posted 1 year, 1 month ago 52 Responses

  • Back to the misery

    Bailo looks forward to a "a big sunny suburban playland, with green parks and bike riding, and swimming pools and picnics and barbeques and kids screaming and having fun."

    That might be a bright future for him, but for me it's tragically short-sighted.  It should be obvious that the impact of suburbia goes way beyond the energy economy.  The destruction of biodiversity on all scales is what makes me miserable, if I think about it too long.

    Leopold (Round River) said "One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist ... sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise."

    Bailo evidently belongs to the community Leopold was referring to.On New peak oil documentary fluffs the faithful posted 1 year, 6 months ago 29 Responses

  • re: Malthus Was Totally Anthropocentric

    I'm with Wolverine and anotherID. Agriculture was our true original sin.  Agriculture simplifies ecosystems, diverting a greater share of energy and nutrient fluxes into human biomass, at the expense of all other species.

    The invention of agriculture allowed the human population to expand beyond the ecological carrying capacity of the earth. It led to our estrangement from nature, and from each other when stored food created opportunities for the strong to dominate the weak.

    Of course it's too late to go back. It does mean, however, that as long as global human population is increasing, all "sustainability" measures are rear-guard actions at best.
    On The rhetoric of population in the hunger crisis posted 1 year, 7 months ago 11 Responses

  • Adaptation happens

    Another reason why adaptation may not get much discussion is that it will happen, whether we talk about it or not.  It's safe to say that a global society 50, 100, 1000 etc. years from now will be "adapted."  The question will come down to (as it always has), who wins and who loses?On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

  • How to get there from here

    My visceral distaste for subsidies is at least equal to Sunflower's, but my understanding of how policy gets legislated is closer to Gary Gifford's.  It appears unlikely an energy-policy bill will make it through Congress unless:

    1. a few sufficiently wealthy people each stand to make a lot of money; or

    2. a sufficiently large number of ordinary people each stand to make at least a little money.

    I wish I was wrong, but my wishes have never passed any legislation.

    Sighs, MaladaptedOn A solar grand plan posted 1 year, 9 months ago 29 Responses

  • Storytellers are paid, not born

    JMG, you're onto something here.  Polluting corporations pay top dollar for PR experts to tell their stories for them.  The most skilled experts (or talented artists) charge all the traffic will bear.  Environmentalists, by and large, can't bear the cost of getting our story told.
    On Learning from masters in other fields: What a concept! posted 1 year, 10 months ago 16 Responses

  • Follow the money

    Friends,

    I've been wondering where jabailo gets his information.  He links to this article: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consens ...

    Here's an excerpt from the Mission Statement of The Science and Public Policy Institute:

    'The Institute urges critical appraisal of legislative "climate fixes" for their social, political, and economic and security costs, along with their relative utility or futility.'

    What I found more interesting was the SPPI's page of "Links and Resources".  There are a lot of astroturf organizations on it.  I hope jabailo knows they are informed by the profit motive, rather than by scientific objectivity.
    On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses