[lit-ideas] Re: The end?
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 16:21:12 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Good thing Paul knows. All the scientists are wrong, but Paul knows better.
Paul and Exxon, perfect together. Or in denial. Saw a movie about denial last
night, French, called Under the Sand. Just plain ordinary denial, just one
person's life ruined by it. Rather on the boring side, even if not a bad study
of severe denial.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 4, 2007 4:10 PM
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The end?
>
>
>>- The ocean is absorbing 80% of the heat.
>
>1) What percentage did it absorb before?
>2) when was 'before'?
>
>>The oceans are warming down to 3,000 meters (1.8 miles). As the
>>oceans becomes warmer, they expand. Coastal areas will be flooded.
>
>1) What does "warming" mean?
>2) How deep are they "warm" right now?
>3) How deep were they "warm" before?
>4) When was before?
>
>>- The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (p. 12). This makes water
>>more acidic, which dissolves sea shells. Much of plankton and all
>>the micro life forms in the oceans will be extinct.
>
>This is a doomsday scenario... come to think of it, this whole last
>month has been one long doomsday scenario. Have you ever heard of
>"equilibrium"?
>
>>Fish depend on those micro lifeforms.
>>
>>- Even if we completely stop the increase of gases today, global
>>warming will continue to increase for more than 1,000 years (p. 13).
>
>So... why should we? I mean, I know why we should, but WHY should we,
>in terms of convincing us? If our next 40 generations are going to be
>fucked and Henny Penny is right, then WHY should we?
>
>>This means we've lost New York City. Most of England. Bangladesh.
>>These will not exist several hundred years from now.
>
>They didn't exist several hundreds of years ago either. I mean, maybe
>the land did, but what makes New York, New York?
>
>>The economic impact will be catastrophic.
>
>"will be"?
>
>Hell, I would think that moving a few dozen cities inland -- then to
>be coastal -- would be a GREAT boom to the economy of the world.
>
>>The Stern Report by the British Treasury predicts a 20% decline in
>>the global economy.
>
>What kind of nonsense is this? These figures are pulled from the
>proverbial asses.
>
>>This means a return to the Great Depression of the 1930s. This will
>>cause wars and turmoil.
>>http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1055&p=3
>
>Unlike today?
>
>>Which brings up the question: What will the future be like? It'll be
>>very different from what we know today: no jet travel, practically
>>no use of oil for transportation, severely reduced agriculture,
>>which means a smaller global population. Small agrarian societies
>>with light industries. No urban sprawl. No air conditioning. Most of
>>the USA will be dry desert. Severe droughts that last decades. Huge
>>hurricanes.
>>
>>And this assumes the global food chain doesn't collapse. Will
>>humanity survive?
>
>Humanity will survive, but not 7 billion of us and that's probably a
>good thing. The Earth has exceeded its holding capacity and things
>are righting themselves. We are just a blip. Enjoy the ride. It's
>-35. I could use a few degrees boost.
>
>paul
>
>_________________
>[insert pithy quote here]
>Paul Stone
>pas@xxxxxxxx
>Leamington, ON. Canada
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
