southsider2k5 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 That's all I have to say about this one. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc.../601130327/1071 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 He has at least some interesting thought lines, but I don't think he's taken them to their full extremes. For example, he cites one possible benefit of global warming being more arable land for trees. Well, that is one possibility, but on the other hand, you can also enlarge deserts with global warming, thus removing arable land by cutting off the rain supply. Or you can shift weather patterns to the point that the areas getting moisture are impractical places for growing. Or for that matter, you can make several arable areas significantly colder, to the point that it has a large negative impact on the land. I think he's fallen into the classic trap of "global warming", which I think is just thinking that the whole world gradually warms up, and ignoring all of the little variations it can produce, like significant cooling in some areas, large shifts int he climate patterns of others, etc. For that reason, I still prefer the term "Climate change", since it is probably more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:40 PM) That's all I have to say about this one. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbc.../601130327/1071 Wow indeed. What a moron. I actually agree with the fact that some fringe eco-groups are blocking GM crops and some developments like that for no good reason. But to say that global warming is good because it creates more arable land is idiotic. It's the same as saying that dropping a nuke somewhere is good because it makes more glass. Of course it creates more arable land on the fringes - and it causes desertification in many others, and we LOSE lots of land to rising of water levels. What an ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:45 PM) He has at least some interesting thought lines, but I don't think he's taken them to their full extremes. For example, he cites one possible benefit of global warming being more arable land for trees. Well, that is one possibility, but on the other hand, you can also enlarge deserts with global warming, thus removing arable land by cutting off the rain supply. Or you can shift weather patterns to the point that the areas getting moisture are impractical places for growing. Or for that matter, you can make several arable areas significantly colder, to the point that it has a large negative impact on the land. I think he's fallen into the classic trap of "global warming", which I think is just thinking that the whole world gradually warms up, and ignoring all of the little variations it can produce, like significant cooling in some areas, large shifts int he climate patterns of others, etc. For that reason, I still prefer the term "Climate change", since it is probably more accurate. Damn you. I swear, at least once a day I make a post to make a point, and when it gets posted, you have snuck the same idea (or similar) in before I can finish mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 01:46 PM) I actually agree with the fact that some fringe eco-groups are blocking GM crops and some developments like that for no good reason. Yeah there are some groups blocking GM crops, but I wouldn't in all cases say there's "no good reason." One of the big concerns about GM crops in general is that even if you have a perfectly designed GM crop, you've inserted genes into it which are out of equilibrium with the natural system. Given how easily plants can cross-breed, or how many different varieties of animals might eat them or transport them, it's entirely possible that at some point there will be some very severe downsides to GM crops. I'm not opposed to the development or use of GM crops, but I think that we should be very careful in how we introduce them to the environment. All it takes is 1 little mistake to develop somewhere along the line and we could find tens of thousands of acres of land overrun by some sort of weed that picked up a GM gene and suddenly becomes incredibly hearty and pernicious or resistant to a predator that used to keep it under control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 13, 2006 -> 04:53 PM) Yeah there are some groups blocking GM crops, but I wouldn't in all cases say there's "no good reason." I said some, not all. And I agree, there are potential consequences that need to be studied. We can't just engineer something and throw it on the fields and say "let's see what happens!" Edited January 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rventura23 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 its good he got away from radical environmentalism I dont like a zero-tolerance approach to the environment because in many cases the benefits of the research on the environments and the benefits environmental resources provide outweigh the costs (which obviously differ for each person) associated with the marginal environmental destruction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts