alizardsbet
June 14th, 2007, 01:26 AM
The pros of global warming
Never thought about that, have we?
*** Central Canada, Siberia, and even parts of Greenland will gain more living space and will retain a climate similar to New England.
*** The polar ice caps melting will reduce 100s miles off on shipping routes, reducing risks and costs of product imports and exports.
*** The growing season will be longer, and general plant life will prosper with the increase of carbon dioxide.
*** So we loose some coastline. Goodbye Miami and California. How is this a bad thing?
! Another vote for Globalization right here!!!
“One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.”
The negative pretenses that the evil environmentalist promote
-Having a skewed sense of propriety do not value industrialized society full of capitalists that are perfectly capable of “consuming these small facts” and thus being relatively rational creatures are able to formulate a plan that would allow them to take the correct actions necessary in subverting any inconvenience this might cause in the not so near future.
-Atomic power is even more blasphemous to the purest values of the environmentalist, even though it does not emit any despicable green house gases. This can not to any cynic-minded-anti-industry person be a consideration for an alternative energy source.
-Their only method of relieving the potential disaster raising its ugly head on an unseen horizon is to place restrictions on emissions that would directly impact our ability to produce reliable energy sources, and so would cripple the industrialized societies. Given that downward spiral and divide that by the obvious increase of the human population in years to come the end result = “reduction of man made power available per capita.”
-Naturally this would cause some festering unrest among world stage key players. As I am sure you have concluded there would be those that wouldn’t comply. Renegades would continue to expel alarming amounts of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. So the good guys would naturally have to go to even greater links in controlling the expulsion of toxic levels of green house gases. If this doesn’t trigger a world war, then it would cripple the modern societies to a stone throw from well… the stone age.
“All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.”
http://www.outlawjournalism.com/news/?p=5707
Anyway I don’t like the idea too much of what this article suggests we do as one possible way of controlling the temperature of the planet with nuclear missiles being detonated to create a controlled nuclear winter. There would be a reversal after a point of the water being a natural coolant, like how we sweat, and the small fact it is reflective and would bounce excess heat/light/energy away from the planet. So in a sense the polar ice caps melting would correct the initial effect. The problem that this article kinda neglects is the fact that with that reduction in temperature, the given rate of human sprawl plants might become scared. And you know what that means right… No oxygen.
However as I think this is a topic that is only going to get really resolved through discussion and concerted efforts to fix the problem. I throw it out there.
Never thought about that, have we?
*** Central Canada, Siberia, and even parts of Greenland will gain more living space and will retain a climate similar to New England.
*** The polar ice caps melting will reduce 100s miles off on shipping routes, reducing risks and costs of product imports and exports.
*** The growing season will be longer, and general plant life will prosper with the increase of carbon dioxide.
*** So we loose some coastline. Goodbye Miami and California. How is this a bad thing?
! Another vote for Globalization right here!!!
“One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.”
The negative pretenses that the evil environmentalist promote
-Having a skewed sense of propriety do not value industrialized society full of capitalists that are perfectly capable of “consuming these small facts” and thus being relatively rational creatures are able to formulate a plan that would allow them to take the correct actions necessary in subverting any inconvenience this might cause in the not so near future.
-Atomic power is even more blasphemous to the purest values of the environmentalist, even though it does not emit any despicable green house gases. This can not to any cynic-minded-anti-industry person be a consideration for an alternative energy source.
-Their only method of relieving the potential disaster raising its ugly head on an unseen horizon is to place restrictions on emissions that would directly impact our ability to produce reliable energy sources, and so would cripple the industrialized societies. Given that downward spiral and divide that by the obvious increase of the human population in years to come the end result = “reduction of man made power available per capita.”
-Naturally this would cause some festering unrest among world stage key players. As I am sure you have concluded there would be those that wouldn’t comply. Renegades would continue to expel alarming amounts of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide. So the good guys would naturally have to go to even greater links in controlling the expulsion of toxic levels of green house gases. If this doesn’t trigger a world war, then it would cripple the modern societies to a stone throw from well… the stone age.
“All of the rising clamor for energy caps is an invitation to the American people to put themselves in chains. It is an attempt to lure them along a path thousands of times more deadly than any military misadventure, and one from which escape might be impossible.”
http://www.outlawjournalism.com/news/?p=5707
Anyway I don’t like the idea too much of what this article suggests we do as one possible way of controlling the temperature of the planet with nuclear missiles being detonated to create a controlled nuclear winter. There would be a reversal after a point of the water being a natural coolant, like how we sweat, and the small fact it is reflective and would bounce excess heat/light/energy away from the planet. So in a sense the polar ice caps melting would correct the initial effect. The problem that this article kinda neglects is the fact that with that reduction in temperature, the given rate of human sprawl plants might become scared. And you know what that means right… No oxygen.
However as I think this is a topic that is only going to get really resolved through discussion and concerted efforts to fix the problem. I throw it out there.