RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said “I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.” He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on). A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on. That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown. I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here"). A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes. Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man. Erik Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is
saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here").
A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I've either not heard of that organization, or you are calling me a donkey. <g> I believe you may be falling into some stereotypical traps, i.e. right-wingers want Grandma to eat dog food and they want all yer childern (sic) to die. Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:16 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is
saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here").
A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Dale, Not even remotely, check them out http://www.darksky.org, they do a lot of good things. This is not about right-wing or left-wing, this is about protecting our environment. The argument, that doing so will harm or economy, has been around since I recieved my Bachelors Degree in Biology in the 70's. It just doesn't wash, it might hurt a few elitists in thier Swiss or Grand Cayman Accounts, but not us non-millionaires. We should all have such a problem as paying a millionaires tax burden! Erik I've either not heard of that organization, or you are calling me a
donkey. <g>
I believe you may be falling into some stereotypical traps, i.e. right-wingers want Grandma to eat dog food and they want all yer childern (sic) to die.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:16 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is
saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here").
A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Hi Erik, I think you missed my attempted humor - I'm certainly familiar with the IDA. They have some great recommendations. I don't think anyone is arguing with you that, within reason, it is good to cut down on pollutants. But, I think it is very arguable that before you implement something such as Kyoto - you better be very sure of what you are doing. I suspect that getting much further into this will tire even those that have tolerated this topic. Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:58 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale, Not even remotely, check them out http://www.darksky.org, they do a lot of good things.
This is not about right-wing or left-wing, this is about protecting our environment. The argument, that doing so will harm or economy, has been around since I recieved my Bachelors Degree in Biology in the 70's. It just doesn't wash, it might hurt a few elitists in thier Swiss or Grand Cayman Accounts, but not us non-millionaires. We should all have such a problem as paying a millionaires tax burden!
Erik
I've either not heard of that organization, or you are calling me a
donkey. <g>
I believe you may be falling into some stereotypical traps, i.e. right-wingers want Grandma to eat dog food and they want all yer childern (sic) to die.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:16 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
Dale, We have to many people deciding policy in DC that don't have a clue about reasonable solutions. Al Gore is a bit of a hippocrite, but the Republicans have a poor record on the envrinoment, at best. Their are so many simple things that can be done that are getting lost in politics, or more correctly special interest groups.I agree Kyoto is meaningless unless China and India are onboard. But, that does not excuse the current adminstration from not doing anything until they are almost out of office. Erik Hi Erik,
I think you missed my attempted humor - I'm certainly familiar with the IDA. They have some great recommendations. I don't think anyone is arguing with you that, within reason, it is good to cut down on pollutants.
But, I think it is very arguable that before you implement something such as Kyoto - you better be very sure of what you are doing. I suspect that getting much further into this will tire even those that have tolerated this topic.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:58 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale, Not even remotely, check them out http://www.darksky.org, they do a lot of good things.
This is not about right-wing or left-wing, this is about protecting our environment. The argument, that doing so will harm or economy, has been around since I recieved my Bachelors Degree in Biology in the 70's. It just doesn't wash, it might hurt a few elitists in thier Swiss or Grand Cayman Accounts, but not us non-millionaires. We should all have such a problem as paying a millionaires tax burden!
Erik
I've either not heard of that organization, or you are calling me a
donkey. <g>
I believe you may be falling into some stereotypical traps, i.e. right-wingers want Grandma to eat dog food and they want all yer childern (sic) to die.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 3:16 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik, I hope I don't offend you by saying you are arrived at a point that I can agree with, you just came from a different direction. The whole, save the planet argument gets old and has no solid, scientific support. I would like to become comfortable with the idea that we are products of this planet, we cannot destroy it. It will destroy us far sooner than we destroy it. Mother Nature is a bitch like that. Until then, I would like to remind everyone of our good friend Chuck Darwin and his survival of the fittest theory. I recognize it is still only a theory, but in my uneducated opinion, I think it is very acceptable and it has stood the test of time, over a majority of the history of modern science anyway. So, I agree with you that Earthlings should be greener, but only because it just makes more sense, it is logical, it is much more cost effective. Face it, why is everyone up in arms about oil? It is not the because of our dependency on the mid-east (BTW, we only get 1/5th of our oil from the Mid-East, so it's really not that big of a dependency), it's not because it's bad for the environment or any other excuse why we shouldn't use oil as much as we do. It is because it hurts at the pump. Personally, I can stand it, it is annoying to be propelling our personal transporters with such a primitive technology!! Of course, oil isn't the only problem. Coal is a big producer of nasty emissions and, once again, just a very primitive technology overall. So, Erik, we should be greener because we can be, the technology exists at every level...we will never get rid of oil 100%, but for you and me and all of us reading this and a majority of the driving population worldwide, we shouldn't be using gasoline to drive around town..it's just plain stupid!!!! I'm done ranting now....have a good weekend everyone! -Rich On 6/1/07, erikhansen@thebluezone.net <erikhansen@thebluezone.net> wrote:
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is
saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here").
A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I would like to answer this Erik, but first, I would like to know who the Dark Sky Ass is? Is he someone we know? ;) Let's sustitute the word economy with "ecology" and revisit those very same questions. Erik writes: "What damage to the ecology by increasing gas mileage?" By increasing gas mileage we would fill our cars less which would result in fewer trips to the local gas station. This would result in a loss of valuable gas revenue used to keep the highway surfaces smooth, which we all know helps gas mileage, that and correct tire pressure. The lack of highway maintenance funds would result in more pot holes, and everyone knows more pot holes equal more erradic driving, and more erradic driving results in an increase use of gas. Erik writes: What damage to the ecology by using more solar and wind energy? Wide use of solar panels will reflect much needed sunlight back into the atmosphere further heating it. Duh! And since no one wants a wind farm in their neighborhood, these wind farms will take properties once inhabited by trees and little animals, and so with no place to go, the little animals will invade our communities and well, we just can't have that, so, we will have to humanly put the little creatures down which will require more bullets, powder and.... hmmm, I'll have to think about this one. Erik writes: The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. Plant more trees and flowers around the windmills like they do in Holland. Plants suck up CO2 and exhale O2. That's a fair trade. Erik writes: We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Helloooo, Geico??? As far as extinction goes, I don't know if you've noticed, but the population of the world isn't exactly getting smaller, though the Marines are doing the best they can, but the rest of the world is growing by leaps and bounds. Maybe if we put our energy (no pun intended) into controlling this growth, perhaps through more wars, there would be less humans to exhale CO2 and after all isn't that what you want? And finally, of course we coexisted with dinosaurs, what the hell do you think they ate??? ;) Quoting erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net:
Dale,
What damage to the economy by reducing electrical comsumption by, say adopting the recomendations of the International Dark Sky Ass? What damage to the economy by increasing gas mileage? What damage by using more solar and wind energy? Do you doubt that mankind is poisioning his environoment and his childern? The levels of carbon dioxide have clearly risen since the industrial revolution, this is not for the sake of saving the earth but for the sake of human beings. We are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs, or do you believe we coexisted with the dinosaurs. Wake-up Man.
Erik
Michael, with all due respect - I think I did get his point. He is
saying, yes there is climate change - but, is it a problem? The calamities you mentioned presuppose that there will be rapid climate change. I think it would be fair to state that Dr. Griffin may be skeptical of anthropogenically induced rapid climate change. Given this, I don't think he called concerned people arrogant. I think he said that those people who say the right temperature is X and must be kept at X - are arrogant (i.e. the center of the solar system is "here").
A rational person would probably also like to see significant proof (i.e. really solid models that don't neglect major greenhouse gases, and work forwards and backwards, etc.) before making major economic policy changes.
Clear skies, Dale.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Re: Unusual NASA release
And then, of course, they followed it up with an equal amount of time by global warming skeptics or others that may have understood his point. Oh, they didn't??? Gee, I thought that National Subsidized Radio was the "real" fair and balanced radio.
You missed the point, Dale. Griffin didn't even quarrel with science on the issue of global warming. His statements would be bizarre whether global warming is anthropogenic or brought to us by the tooth fairy. Griffin said "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with." He then said "I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings." He accused those people actually concerned of being arrogant (the standard argument used by people without a leg to stand on).
A rational person might say that since civilization arose in the sort of climate we have now, humans might prefer it. That same person might say that rapid climate change might not give you sufficient time to prepare for necessary changes in population distribution, medicine, agriculture and so on.
That rational person might point out that those people who live on the coast might have something to say about rising sea levels, increased storm damage and so on. A person living in a temperate climate might not be too keen about malaria zones moving out from the equator. Increasing populations in a place like, uh, Utah might wonder where their food is going to be grown.
I know you got great satisfaction from getting in a dig at NPR, but they gave Griffin plenty of time to respond to Gregg Easterbrook's article. They didn't editorialize--they just let Griffin have his say. He should have had the sense to keep his mouth shut. As the proverb says, "Better to let people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it".
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (5)
-
Dale Hooper -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Ilove2getSpam＠gmail.com -
Michael Carnes