Skip to main content

View Diary: Good news: Obama, Quietly, Prepares to Act on Climate. Bad News: Too Late? (105 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  2c is inevitable. (4+ / 0-)

    We need urgent action to avoid 4c, which would be catastrophic.

    Democracy Now! reports on the Tar Sands Blockade

    Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

    by play jurist on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 12:02:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      what may be inevitable is that we have dumped so much CO2 and other green house gasses into the air that 2 C will happen unless we do anything.

      There's a lot of work and research being done about removing and undoing what we have wrought.

      It's far from over

      •  Ok maybe. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MichaelNY, sandblaster

        I don't think we can count on a breakthrough technology that removes emissions from the air. I may be mistaken. Certainly this is an important line of research, but I fear that we can become too sanguine about tech breakthroughs and that reduces the urgency to reduce emissions.

        Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

        by play jurist on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:16:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  it's not about being sanguine at all (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          humanity is adapt at modifying nature to suit it's whims and there's a number of ways to remove green house gases that would actually be useful

          •  Links? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            play jurist, duhban, MichaelNY

            This health care system is a moral atrocity. Dr. Ralphdog

            by AllisonInSeattle on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:08:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  It would be good to have some examples (0+ / 0-)

            of pollution removal technologies that you think will cost less and involve less risk than simply not polluting in the first place. I'm not really convinced be generalities about humanity's adeptness. Your line sort of smacks of the "worrying about cliamte change is like worrying about the horse poop problem in NYC before the automobile (something will come up)." Of the many things wrong with that argument, one is the obvious point that the solution to the relatively local horse poop problem is contributing to the very global problem under discussion. I'm certainly no luddite, but I'm also not convinced by the devotion of the technotopian optimists either. We need specifics and concrete discussion not blind faith in progress.

            Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

            by play jurist on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 02:29:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  please don't be sophomoric (0+ / 0-)

              I never suggested that it is easier to remove greenhouse gasses then it is to not produce them, because as I think we both know that's not really the case currently (though the future is always ever changing)

              What I am saying is that just as we either we are having a direct negative impact on the climate or are on the verge of we can also impact climate postively (in terms of returning it to where it was).

              Frankly you sound closed minded and I question just how much you understand the science involved. And I thank you kindly or not to refrain from straw maning me. If you can't handle the complexity of my argument then no harm no foul just say so or say nothing. But don't engage in the tactics you are engaging in as it just makes you look uncouth.

              If you want to consider some new things read the links above and more then anything research the topic, the chemistry involved is fascinating.

              •  Please don't be a spaz. (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe I misread the point you were making. I wasn't intentionally straw-manning you. I was just pressing for clarification, and wanting to emphasize the point that the technology you're referring to can't be counted on to rescue us if we don't reduce emissions. Seems like you're on board with that point, so it would have been nice to just clarify that without piling a bunch of insults in. In any event, I agreed with you right away that this is an important line of research, so there's really no need to tell me I'm uninformed. I was just pressing the point that we can't count on this kind of technology and that we need to act to reduce emissions to avoid 4c. I think ultimately we agree on that, so that should be the end of it once we clarified things. I'm pretty taken aback by this reply and by your need to insult me. I guess some people are too impatient or too thin skinned for this kind of discussion. Then, we all have our bad days. I'm sorry that you read my responses with such hostility. Maybe i could have read you more charitably or carefully, but seriously... lighten up homey.

                Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

                by play jurist on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:22:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Mainly, (0+ / 0-)

                I read too much into the "humanity is adapt [sic]" statement. It seriously could have been not a very big deal at all for you to clarify that my inference was not what you intended.

                Passive renunciation is not the whole of wisdom.

                by play jurist on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 07:24:18 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  touche (0+ / 0-)

                  but it seriously could have been not a very big deal at all for you to ask instead of act as you did.  I readily and fully admit that I don't communicate well and having to do so over the written word is harder still but at the same time you and only you are responsible for your actions and words.

                  Frankly what I wrote was not exactly intended to insult but neither was it intended to be nice. I simply met your seemingly rather abrupt, arrogant and yes even sophomoric attitude head on.

                  I am not really a subtle person as I would think my comments should demonstrate, I simply am who I am with no apologies thus you would be well advised to read into less and simply read what I have to write. Though in this I owe you perhaps not exactly an apology but more flexibility then I demonstrated. As I said my goal was not to insult exactly but to meet like for like head on.

                  You are correct in that we both agree that climate change is a pressing and very real threat if not reality at this point. Where we do no agree is that I see that mankind having chosen to screw the balance up can act to change that. Maybe we still lack the wisdom and control to achieve the balance we had before we (humanity) charged in like a bull in a china shop but we have enough knowledge, skill and motivation (if not right now then sooner rather then later) to keep the damage limited. Perhaps I should have backed that up immediately but I am not in the habit of doing so unless pushed to it.

                  And you are also correct that I am impatient when I have to deal with people that think they are so right and yet obviously do not fully understand what they are talking about.

                  You only get to be arrogant when you can back it up, anything less is hollow and annoying.  And given how much sheer effort I expend to communicate I dislike intensely repeating myself or having people assume things. If I wanted to tell you something, I would directly and without what I would view as 'games' (just some free advice)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site