'No time to lose' to start thinking sustainability

How about no time to lose in coming to the realization that no one is actually going to implement any of your political suggestions based on the flimsy science put forth.

If you really want to make a difference push for as many nuclear power plants to be commissioned as you can and lobby for us to rescind the executive order banning the reprocessing of waste.

I propose we build 3 enormous arks (an A ark, a B ark, and a C ark) and send them off to another world...

GrayMouser,
send who off to another world?The arks full of people who want to be saved or the ones who inficted this con on us?
Al Gore,Jim Hanson and the EU Politbureau already are on a different planet!

Anyone actually has an argument against thinking about sustainability?

Anyone here doubt that the way we manage our world wont last forever?

There is flimsy science to cherrypick for all of you, but it wont make the massive amount of good science topple.

I guess not, just stick to your talking points keep repeating and watch the rest of the world pass you by.

One day you will wake up and not they but you will be looked upon as delusional.

Anyone actually has an argument against thinking about sustainability?

Yes there is no such thing, civilizations are either growing or dying. Equilibrium/"sustainability" is a modern myth invented by people who want to control other people through the political manipulation of the resources of the people they want to control.

There is no sustainability, even the sun (which is what the sheep who bleat on about sustainability bleat about the most) will eventually burn out.

Anyone here doubt that the way we manage our world wont last forever?

Yep, me. Our technology may change, but the basic principle of us changing our environment to suit us will not, it's simply who and what we are.

There is flimsy science to cherrypick for all of you, but it wont make the massive amount of good science topple.

LOL! The "good" science being that science cherrypicked by you and those you agree with no doubt. What a joke....

I guess not, just stick to your talking points keep repeating and watch the rest of the world pass you by.

Or you could stick to yours as the rest of us pass you by while you try to figure out how to make granola from a solar oven and chuck spears at...well at whatever animal those who have the "good" science tell you that you can....

One day you will wake up and not they but you will be looked upon as delusional.

Until then (snicker) we'll go with the best evidence we have and call them delusional.

And I propose to America's policy makers to turn Canada and Mexico into giant parking lots so that American oil works can have a place to park their vehicles while they work to give us cheaper oil by tapping the oil reserves located there so that we don't have to send money to terrorist loving creations in the middle east who worship a moon god.

See that is the way democracy works, everyone is entitled to an opinion much to the dismay of liberals who feel only their way of thinking should be allowed.

I vote that Al Gore and all like-minded people do the right thing, move to a commune, and live off the fat of the land. Use only sustainable technologies, and breathe as little as possible. Leave the rest of us alone.

I found this entertaining(Dr. Roy Spencer):
http://jlf.stream...1608.mp4

Once more we see the usual non-substantive drivel of the unthinking & selfish, engaging in their self-congratulatory taking comfort & courage from their kind.

Most reminiscent of the cliques of the immature; impotent individuals seeking power through the ratification of those like them.

I actually think what really galls our friend deepsand here is (and I could be wrong) that even he knows there's a snowball's chance in Hades of any of this Doppelt's suggestions will even be taken seriously by the majority, much less be acted on or implemented.

In the end that's all that really matters, at least that's all I care about...that we keep these wanna be tin plated water cooler dictators like Doppelt in their proper place. That being in the corner with the rest of the kids who have trouble staying inside the lines too.

I guess you are saying you have a different philosophy than mine.

-Yes there is no such thing, civilizations are either growing or dying. Equilibrium/"sustainability" is a modern myth invented by people who want to control other people through the political manipulation of the resources of the people they want to control.

There is no sustainability, even the sun (which is what the sheep who bleat on about sustainability bleat about the most) will eventually burn out.

I suppose you believe in social darwinism- the stongest will survive.And your reasoning follows that belief.
So you are saying that its a conspiracy to take away recources from the rightfull owners, the ones in power?

The sun will burn out in trillions of years yes-not something we have to worry about as in a few billion years earth will be roasted by the expanding sun before it runs out of hydrogen fuel.But we dont have to worry about that yet either, there will have been cosmic events that have bombarded earth with deadly radiation like supernovae and gammaray bursts.Cant predict them yet so we dont have to think about that yet.

What can we worry about in regard to sustainability?About the Fukoursefvsup factors, events that happen within our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our childeren or grandchildren or their children depends on how much you care about others i guess.

-Anyone here doubt that the way we manage our world wont last forever?


Yep, me. Our technology may change, but the basic principle of us changing our environment to suit us will not, it's simply who and what we are

I should have made a less general statement like can we manage our world like we do now with the emphasis on short term gains without the unwanted longterm effect?

I agree that we change our enviroment the way we suits us wich is mainly short time gain, sustainability is thinking beyond that.

-There is flimsy science to cherrypick for all of you, but it wont make the massive amount of good science topple.


LOL! The "good" science being that science cherrypicked by you and those you agree with no doubt. What a joke....

I wasnt referring to flimsy science as anything i dont agree with, its the kind of science that doesnt seem so have much credibility- like the pretend science you see often on forums people come up with lots of "facts" that dont fit in the general concensus considered by science.

Its always on both sides of the discussion.

LOL!!lol you assumed i didnt understand that we all are biased and that we resort to cheap tricks like ridiculing lol lol lol.

I guess not, just stick to your talking points keep repeating and watch the rest of the world pass you by.


Or you could stick to yours as the rest of us pass you by while you try to figure out how to make granola from a solar oven and chuck spears at...well at whatever animal those who have the "good" science tell you that you can....

I will stick to the talking point that i give more credibility to what science says over what an anonymous person on the internet has to bleat.

-Until then (snicker) we'll go with the best evidence we have and call them delusional.

The mythical evidence of stuff that confirms our beliefs, i agree its tricky not to get caught up in that web of uncertainty that believing in stuff generates.

Thats one reason to value the general concensus in science over ucertain "facts" or someones personal belief.

Can anyone tell me how to quote text here? My last post would be better readable with it.

"Can anyone tell me how to quote text here? My last post would be better readable with it."

And here I was thinking you were having one heck of an argument with yourself.

I do have those from time to time.

It's funny. The AGW movement is socialism. Actually more like communism. It does leave a few people at the top.

Ah the socialist/communist argument if everything fails you can always call them names right?

Your philosophy is amusingly easy to comprehend.

Now please try and give me the best argument you can find, and dont come up with that conspiracy stuff either or be prepared to be ridiculed.

Ah the socialist/communist argument if everything fails you can always call them names right?

Your philosophy is amusingly easy to comprehend.

Now please try and give me the best argument you can find, and dont come up with that conspiracy stuff either or be prepared to be ridiculed.

Ok here's an easy one.

In a closed system, such as the Earth, how can you assume there is a possibility of sustainability without fundamental expansion?

Without persuing new resources, sustainability is a farce.

Sustainability would be either stable, but you are more looking for the word stagnant.Or a relative stability that would take in account the risk of catastophal failures vs growth.

If the only goal is to maximise profit the chance of catastrophal failure will be high.

Its tricky but finding the best balance between the two will produce the maximal benefit.

Ignoring the latter has caused things to implode more than once.

Sustainability would be either stable, but you are more looking for the word stagnant.Or a relative stability that would take in account the risk of catastophal failures vs growth.

If the only goal is to maximise profit the chance of catastrophal failure will be high.

Its tricky but finding the best balance between the two will produce the maximal benefit.

Ignoring the latter has caused things to implode more than once.

So you think that the quest to profit from resource use is responsible or will be responsible for catastrophy?

Not the quest for profit, the lack of thinking about how we should do it in the most responsible way.

If we only focus on how to maximise profit for the short term we dont notice some of the correcting effects in economics, it lead to undesirable instability.

Thats when things start collapsing, and hurting the country as a whole.

Sustainability would mean we would not put all our hopes on the short term maximalization, but on the long term health of the system.Building in safeguards to overcome the inevitable corrections.These safeguards are aimed at stabilising markets to better function when there is a collapse.

A prepared market will recover faster after a collapse and will be less hard hit at the next one.

Sustainability is maximalization for the long term.

But in order to create sustainability you need to stop growth or have more resources injected into the system. How would you propose we do that? By stopping growth or by finding more resources from an outside source? Just to clarify, the system in this question is the planet.