RE: Climate catastrophe isn't so certain
May 15, 2012 at 4:06 pm
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2012 at 4:08 pm by orogenicman.)
(May 15, 2012 at 1:24 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: Guys guys, calm down. This isn't the end of the world. The Earth has been here for countless years and has survived much. It will continue to be here for a long, long time so stop the panic because the Earth isn't going anywhere...
We are. We're going on a rather interesting journey, an adventure if you will, into the realms of extiniction and non-existance where we will be placed in museums by the new dominant race of the planet.
Erm, and as human beings, this is not something to worry about? When did that happen?
(May 15, 2012 at 1:32 pm)Chuck Wrote:(May 15, 2012 at 1:23 pm)orogenicman Wrote: That is largely because organizations such as the Corp of Engineers, who are responsible for flood control in the U.S., are prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The levees in New orleans were, in fact, slated for upgrades, and they were well aware of the limited protection they provided. Unfortunately, neither the Corps nor the Bush administration were in sync with nature's timetable.
Having said that, to be honest, I don't think the expense of trying to protect New Orleans from the inevidible is worth the expense and effort. It is my opinion that the most vulernable portions of the city should be moved to higher ground. It is more cost effective, and would have a longer lasting result. Continuing to build on such disaster-prone land is irrational.
Every organization in charge diseaster prevention in the world is prone to political manuevering and budget constraints. The US, having a very large and rich economy, is actually far better off despite being under the same constraint.
My point is the same constraint will exist regardless of ACC, but because of ACC, the consequences of these constraints would be predictably worse. The difference can be called casaulties of ACC.
Or perhaps more appropriately, victims of ACC deniers.
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
