NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

A few additional thoughts:

That door swings both ways. If the "Argument from authority" is to be dismissed on the man-made side it cannot be cleaved to on the opposite side merely as a matter of personal preference, otherwise it's a hypocritical response. And we haven't much else in the way of options, either. None of us are environmental scientists (I think... anyone on the board who is, speak up!) so we can only interpret data from a layman's perspective. The suggestion would seem to be we can't rely on people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff to do their jobs. I think we have to kinda give them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to examine the motivations behind their work, well that is an entirely seperate issue.

Also, this outcry that "C02 is plant food!" and "The earth was once more carbon rich than it is now!"... these are irrelevant. In the case of C02 it, like anything else, is benefitial up to a point and toxic beyond that point. If I lock you in a room and pump in pure oxygen, you will die. Plants are no different. Modern plants would choke and die if you took them back to that carbon-rich time because they're not adapted to survive it.

The key concept here is finding the "tipping point". The whole "we're insignificant" argument tends to overlook this. The difference between water and ice for instance is one degree celcius. One degree difference is of little consequence if it's between 18 and 19 degrees or between -12 and -13 but if it's between one and zero it's VERY important. In other words, the straw that breaks the camel's back. Are you certain we can't do that to the biosphere? You wanna roll those dice? Are you sure? I'm not.

Now at this point some of you might be thinking "Jeezus CapnG, if you love the planet so much why don't you marry it?" Let me make one thing clear: I don't give a shit about the planet. The planet is a mudball in space. It's not alive, it's not concious. There's no "Gaia". It was here for billions of years before we showed up and it'll still be here for billions more after we're gone. I care about US. HUMANS. We are the ONLY species that has any concept of what extinction is and as such we are the only species that has any chance in hell (slim as it may be) of detecting it ahead of time and at least delaying it.

<blockquote data-quote="CapnG" data-source="post: 53898" data-attributes="member: 175">A few additional thoughts:That door swings both ways. If the &quot;Argument from authority&quot; is to be dismissed on the man-made side it cannot be cleaved to on the opposite side merely as a matter of personal preference, otherwise it&#039;s a hypocritical response. And we haven&#039;t much else in the way of options, either. None of us are environmental scientists (I think... anyone on the board who is, speak up!) so we can only interpret data from a layman&#039;s perspective. The suggestion would seem to be we can&#039;t rely on people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff to do their jobs. I think we have to kinda give them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to examine the motivations behind their work, well that is an entirely seperate issue. Also, this outcry that &quot;C02 is plant food!&quot; and &quot;The earth was once more carbon rich than it is now!&quot;... these are irrelevant. In the case of C02 it, like anything else, is benefitial up to a point and toxic beyond that point. If I lock you in a room and pump in pure oxygen, you will die. Plants are no different. Modern plants would choke and die if you took them back to that carbon-rich time because they&#039;re not adapted to survive it. The key concept here is finding the &quot;tipping point&quot;. The whole &quot;we&#039;re insignificant&quot; argument tends to overlook this. The difference between water and ice for instance is one degree celcius. One degree difference is of little consequence if it&#039;s between 18 and 19 degrees or between -12 and -13 but if it&#039;s between one and zero it&#039;s VERY important. In other words, the straw that breaks the camel&#039;s back. Are you certain we can&#039;t do that to the biosphere? You wanna roll those dice? Are you sure? I&#039;m not.Now at this point some of you might be thinking &quot;Jeezus CapnG, if you love the planet so much why don&#039;t you marry it?&quot; Let me make one thing clear: I don&#039;t give a shit about the planet. The planet is a mudball in space. It&#039;s not alive, it&#039;s not concious. There&#039;s no &quot;Gaia&quot;. It was here for billions of years before we showed up and it&#039;ll still be here for billions more after we&#039;re gone. I care about US. HUMANS. We are the ONLY species that has any concept of what extinction is and as such we are the only species that has any chance in hell (slim as it may be) of detecting it ahead of time and at least delaying it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnG, post: 53898, member: 175"] A few additional thoughts: That door swings both ways. If the "Argument from authority" is to be dismissed on the man-made side it cannot be cleaved to on the opposite side merely as a matter of personal preference, otherwise it's a hypocritical response. And we haven't much else in the way of options, either. None of us are environmental scientists (I think... anyone on the board who is, speak up!) so we can only interpret data from a layman's perspective. The suggestion would seem to be we can't rely on people who spend their entire lives studying this stuff to do their jobs. I think we have to kinda give them the benefit of the doubt. If you want to examine the motivations behind their work, well that is an entirely seperate issue. Also, this outcry that "C02 is plant food!" and "The earth was once more carbon rich than it is now!"... these are irrelevant. In the case of C02 it, like anything else, is benefitial up to a point and toxic beyond that point. If I lock you in a room and pump in pure oxygen, you will die. Plants are no different. Modern plants would choke and die if you took them back to that carbon-rich time because they're not adapted to survive it. The key concept here is finding the "tipping point". The whole "we're insignificant" argument tends to overlook this. The difference between water and ice for instance is one degree celcius. One degree difference is of little consequence if it's between 18 and 19 degrees or between -12 and -13 but if it's between one and zero it's VERY important. In other words, the straw that breaks the camel's back. Are you certain we can't do that to the biosphere? You wanna roll those dice? Are you sure? I'm not. Now at this point some of you might be thinking "Jeezus CapnG, if you love the planet so much why don't you marry it?" Let me make one thing clear: I don't give a shit about the planet. The planet is a mudball in space. It's not alive, it's not concious. There's no "Gaia". It was here for billions of years before we showed up and it'll still be here for billions more after we're gone. I care about [B]US[/B]. HUMANS. We are the ONLY species that has any concept of what extinction is and as such we are the only species that has any chance in hell (slim as it may be) of detecting it ahead of time and at least delaying it. [/QUOTE]

Verification