0
turtlespeed

Question for both the Warmists and the Deniers . . .

Recommended Posts

. . . mainly geared toward the Warmists.

So what gives us the right to climateform another planet?

I ran across this article - 6 years old . . . but I was watching the Science channel last night and saw a show on what we (earthlings) wanted to do to mars to change the atmosphere.

The whole time I'm thinking "Why would they do that? Why, when the same people are so set against any kind of climate change here?"

Are those people just screaming flaming hypocrites?

Where do you stand?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Where do you stand?

If we find life on Mars, we have a responsibility to not destroy it. (Here too.)

If there is no life there, and we can make it into a second home for life in the solar system - that would be a good thing, IMO.



Do you really think if they find microbial life all climate forming will cease?:S
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Do you really think if they find microbial life all climate forming will cease?:S



If scientists found microbial life as we currently understand it on Mars, I believe all thoughts of anything having to do with the planet Mars would instantly be frozen in place until we could figure out what the F that meant in terms of both our and its survival.

It may mean that Mars is actual uninhabitable in any way, shape or form by humans and any attempts to even visit would be a waste of effort. Or, it may mean, we're completely safe to move in tomorrow afternoon at 3.

Ya just never know unless you study it though.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Do you really think if they find microbial life all climate forming will cease?:S



If scientists found microbial life as we currently understand it on Mars, I believe all thoughts of anything having to do with the planet Mars would instantly be frozen in place until we could figure out what the F that meant in terms of both our and its survival.

It may mean that Mars is actual uninhabitable in any way, shape or form by humans and any attempts to even visit would be a waste of effort. Or, it may mean, we're completely safe to move in tomorrow afternoon at 3.

Ya just never know unless you study it though.


What gives us the right to do that though?

What gives us the right to cahnge the climate on another planet while people scream and yell and cry about the miniscule differences that they try to pass off as major climate changes?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>What gives us the right to do that though?

The same right we had to walk on the Moon. Basically we have any rights we want - provided we don't harm anyone else when we exercise them.

>What gives us the right to cahnge the climate on another planet
>while people scream and yell and cry about the miniscule differences
>that they try to pass off as major climate changes?

Because if there is no one on Mars, no one will starve/go thirsty/have to move/lose their farm if we change the climate there.

Now, if we DO change the climate of Mars to something that humans can cope with, and someone comes along saying "let's make it uninhabitable cause I want to make more money selling pressure suits" - then you would see a similar sort of resistance to climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What gives us the right to cahnge the climate on another planet while people scream and yell and cry about the miniscule differences that they try to pass off as major climate changes?



Well, semantically, nothing. Nothing "gives us the right" to do anything.

What "gave" europeans "the right" to bring small pox to the Americas?

Fortunately, some of us have gone beyond thinking that we can just steamroll over a ecosystem. Unfortunately, there are those in our society that will always think that's their right.

Right now on Earth, there is a faction that thinks anywhere there is oil, they have "the right" to plunder it whether or not it has the possibility of destroying entire ecosystems. The perfect example is ANWAR.

Now, if you want to come down on the side of being against such unethical behavior, congratulations, you've become enlightened.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Where do you stand?

If we find life on Mars, we have a responsibility to not destroy it. (Here too.)



Huh? Bacterial rights? So far, other than decades of mysterious probe failures, we have seen no evidence of any life on Mars that warrants much worrying.

but the resource it would take to make Mars usable for us seem staggering, or too slow to be of any help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

. . . mainly geared toward the Warmists.

So what gives us the right to climateform another planet?

I ran across this article - 6 years old . . . but I was watching the Science channel last night and saw a show on what we (earthlings) wanted to do to mars to change the atmosphere.


The whole time I'm thinking "Why would they do that? Why, when the same people are so set against any kind of climate change here?"

Are those people just screaming flaming hypocrites?

Where do you stand?


Do you think it is the same people? Are the same people who want to Climateform Mars the same people that are so set against any kind of climate change here?

But yes they are hypocrites regardless.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Do you think it is the same people? Are the same people who want to Climateform Mars the same people that are so set against any kind of climate change here?

.



Yes I do.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Bacterial rights?

Just morality, really. Wiping out all the life on a planet should not be something we do without a very good reason.

>So far, other than decades of mysterious probe failures, we have
>seen no evidence of any life on Mars that warrants much worrying.

Agreed. At this point it is unlikely - but not impossible. A visitor to the center of Antarctica would not see any life there either, but it's there; it's just hard to find.

>but the resource it would take to make Mars usable for us seem
>staggering, or too slow to be of any help.

Well, we now have a lot of tricks to help us.

One is greenhouse gas emission. CO2 is one but it's relatively weak compared to some synthetic ones. Octafluoropropane is an excellent greenhouse gas, and in tiny quantities could start a runaway greenhouse effect. Once you get temperatures to rise a moderate amount (10C or so) then the CO2 ice melts. CO2 levels increase; the greenhouse effect increases. Once they go up another 10-15C the water ice melts and you get lots more water vapor in the atmosphere, which is another good greenhouse gas.

To make enough of that gas we'd have to increase our output of it by a factor of about 10,000 times. Difficult - but not impossible.

Another one is simple albedo change. Dusting the poles with simple carbon would result in them absorbing more heat. Solar-sail craft could transport both the gas and the carbon to Mars - and then hover over the planet, reflecting sunlight onto the surface.

And then there are the methods of just using Mars as it is. Use our largest thermonuclear weapons to dig holes in Mars 5-6 miles deep, and at the bottom of those holes, both pressures and temperatures would be high enough to allow people to live with supplemental oxygen only. (And more importantly, allow plants to grow.)

Any such terraforming schemes will take at least decades if not centuries, and will at best give us a planet we can barely live on. Is it worth it? An entire new planet to live on would be a good thing overall, and would have a lot of side benefits (trememdous advances in geology, atmospheric chemistry, medical science, space travel etc.) But we'd have to take a very long term view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]Right now on Earth, there is a faction that thinks anywhere there is oil, they have "the right" to plunder it whether or not it has the possibility of destroying entire economies.



Agreed. We have become a society that says, "To hell with the consequences, there shall be no discussion, the immediate and certain human toll and costs are worthwhile for there is the possibility of bad stuff happening.

See the arguments about stripping anyone suspected of mental illness of their Constitutional rights - giving them fewer rights than murderers or "enemy combatants."


[Reply]Fortunately, some of us have gone beyond thinking that we can just steamroll over a economy. Unfortunately, there are those in our society that will always think that's their right.



Yep. Notice how changing "system" to "nomy" moves you to the right wing?

There's simply a present day matter of people wanting to concentrate a benefit and spread the costs to everyone, whether it be economic or ecosystemic. It comes down to whether a person views economy or ecology as more important. Recent history suggests the obvious - ecology is important only when the economy is doing well. When the economy sucks, all other concerns take a back seat. (The lousy economy has actually done very good things in terms of its effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we always knew that a lousy economy would drop this, and dropping emissions would drop the economy. It's why 1990 was the year Europe wanted in Kyoto - before the European economy collapsed with the USSR. They were already AT the lower levels!)


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

[Reply]Right now on Earth, there is a faction that thinks anywhere there is oil, they have "the right" to plunder it whether or not it has the possibility of destroying entire economies.






Agreed. We have become a society that says, "To hell with the consequences, there shall be no discussion, the immediate and certain human toll and costs are worthwhile for there is the possibility of bad stuff happening.


Chances are that I won't have a potentially fatal malfunction, but on the chance that bad stuff may happen I jump with a reserve, even though it was bad for my personal economy. So do most other skydivers.

Your arguments are getting pretty thin.

Quote




See the arguments about stripping anyone suspected of mental illness of their Constitutional rights - giving them fewer rights than murderers or "enemy combatants."


.



Where in the USA do murderers and enemy combatants have a right to buy firearms?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

[Reply]Right now on Earth, there is a faction that thinks anywhere there is oil, they have "the right" to plunder it whether or not it has the possibility of destroying entire economies.






Agreed. We have become a society that says, "To hell with the consequences, there shall be no discussion, the immediate and certain human toll and costs are worthwhile for there is the possibility of bad stuff happening.


Chances are that I won't have a potentially fatal malfunction, but on the chance that bad stuff may happen I jump with a reserve, even though it was bad for my personal economy. So do most other skydivers.

Your arguments are getting pretty thin.

Quote




See the arguments about stripping anyone suspected of mental illness of their Constitutional rights - giving them fewer rights than murderers or "enemy combatants."


.



Where in the USA do murderers and enemy combatants have a right to buy firearms?



Uptown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Reply]Chances are that I won't have a potentially fatal malfunction, but on the chance that bad stuff may happen I jump with a reserve, even though it was bad for my personal economy. So do most other skydivers.



You're right. There's never been any skydiving operation under attack. In fact, activities like BASE jumping are perfectly legal everywhere. We can ride motorcycles without helmets. Skydiving has never been under attack and we damned well can be sure that in a world where people's safety is guaranteed, skydiving will be encouraged as a safe activity. Yes, it may seem odd to you, but there are people out there who think that you shouldn't have the choice to do what you do. Rather, they should have the choice.

[Reply]Where in the USA do murderers and enemy combatants have a right to buy firearms?



Murderers don't. They've been adjudicated as murderers.

Enemy non-combatants? Have they been adjudicated as such? Or have they merely been "accused" and denied any opportunity to defend themselves. You've rubbed some people the wrong way, as have I. Aren't we both glad that these people don't have the power to fuck us up? Do you want anyone to have the power to say, "There's something not quite right about Kallend" and have your pilot's license suspended, for example? As you know, any mental illness is take quite seriously by the FAA. That'd suck, wouldn't it?

"Kallend. Prove you aren't a danger to anyone. You want to? Anti-authoritarian, are you? You cannot be trusted. License revoked."

Don't think it'll happen?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites