<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for To address global warming, we must harness rationality, good science, and enlightened globalization]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by katesisco http://www.grist.org/article/mcewan-climate/ Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:28:04 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mcewan-climate/1 climate change

For what may be the first time in our species' history, we have the ability to communicate our thoughts with almost every other human on the planet.  Will that make us take action to preserve our species?  Or will the action taken mimic our action in the microcosm of our daily lives? Will the debate yield anything other than maneuvering for profit?  In the end will anything change?  

From the actions that impinge on our day to day existence, to actions that impact the lives of entire nations, we seem to have a similar result.  The Earth may be seen to be vulnerable to our ant-colony expansions, but look closer, and you will see we humans impact us humans more than anything else.  As Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us. The picture of an ant colony at war with another colony is clearly provoked in imagining our impacts on planet Earth.  

Imagine the strength of a lightening bolt.  A million times more hotter than the surface of the sun.  One strike from Mother Nature and our busy little ant colony lives are erased.  The forces of Nature are truly spectacular past anything man can imagine.  

Now imagine that the understanding of Nature we be believed we had is upended and our understanding is completely useless in the face of new facts and working of the universe.  

Consider that the sun, once thought nuclear, may well be electrical in nature. Consider that planetary bodies may have discharged bolts of unimagined power within the recent past, marking the Earth with deep chasms.  Consider that the waters that on slosh against the continents have drowned sea-shore civilizations in the recent past.  

This introspective is useful for reasoning why the worry about impact on planet Earth is not as imperative as imagined.  Not sufficent reason to cease trying to improve here but good enough to consider that our impact will not be the final answer.      

]]> climate change

For what may be the first time in our species' history, we have the ability to communicate our thoughts with almost every other human on the planet.  Will that make us take action to preserve our species?  Or will the action taken mimic our action in the microcosm of our daily lives? Will the debate yield anything other than maneuvering for profit?  In the end will anything change?  

From the actions that impinge on our day to day existence, to actions that impact the lives of entire nations, we seem to have a similar result.  The Earth may be seen to be vulnerable to our ant-colony expansions, but look closer, and you will see we humans impact us humans more than anything else.  As Pogo said, we have met the enemy and he is us. The picture of an ant colony at war with another colony is clearly provoked in imagining our impacts on planet Earth.  

Imagine the strength of a lightening bolt.  A million times more hotter than the surface of the sun.  One strike from Mother Nature and our busy little ant colony lives are erased.  The forces of Nature are truly spectacular past anything man can imagine.  

Now imagine that the understanding of Nature we be believed we had is upended and our understanding is completely useless in the face of new facts and working of the universe.  

Consider that the sun, once thought nuclear, may well be electrical in nature. Consider that planetary bodies may have discharged bolts of unimagined power within the recent past, marking the Earth with deep chasms.  Consider that the waters that on slosh against the continents have drowned sea-shore civilizations in the recent past.  

This introspective is useful for reasoning why the worry about impact on planet Earth is not as imperative as imagined.  Not sufficent reason to cease trying to improve here but good enough to consider that our impact will not be the final answer.      

]]> Comment #2 by grantnw http://www.grist.org/article/mcewan-climate/ Wed, 04 May 2005 22:47:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/mcewan-climate/2 global warming, not climate change

apparently the term 'climate change' was recommended to Bush by a marketing expert as it was less of a worry than 'global warming'.  the date when he started using the new term was quite clear in his speeches.  best use global warming, because that's what it is!

]]> global warming, not climate change

apparently the term 'climate change' was recommended to Bush by a marketing expert as it was less of a worry than 'global warming'.  the date when he started using the new term was quite clear in his speeches.  best use global warming, because that's what it is!

]]>