Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

Tuesday, 30 March 2010

One of the main obstructions to meaningful action is “modern democracy,” he added. “Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” James Lovelock: Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change
5 comments · Commenting is closed
digg stumbleupon reddit Fark Technorati Faves




Re: Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

One might as fairly say that liberals are too stupid to be trusted with anything to do with climate. In fact, that's a great deal fairer. Doesn't he understand that harm to the environment is part and parcel of an authoritarian process? Is all of human history wasted on him? Is he stark bugfuck nuts?

By Vagrant on 30 March 2010 · 07:53

A is A

Re^2: Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

You know that for which I’d vote. I’ve always loved bugs.

The inhibition to make this kind of statement has been steadily dropping thanks to the rhetoric on all sides.

And if he feels this way about democracy, just imagine his take on minarchy and friends. :)

By A is A on 30 March 2010 · 20:30


Re^3: Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

I'm a little bitter that I missed the best rejoinder. Democracy is already suspended. It consists of fatuous formalisms and empty voting. Mission accomplished! No more bottlenecks. Now all the wise titular leaders can get busy saving us.

Oh, wait...

By Vagrant on 30 March 2010 · 21:23


Re^4: Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

You say minarchy: I say menarche; let's call the whole thing off!

Is it possible to convince even a fair-minded person that this isn't the run-up to a war? For all the attention to hockey-stick trend lines, the argument is really over, since an enlistment of the scientific imagination here is really a question over whether we've an unexpected increase or decrease seen in /anything at all/ involving the troposphere. Whenever there is no decrease or increase, then there is no conclusion to be drawn, while if there is any decrease or increase, well, people say it should definitely be understood in terms of induced global weirding beyond direct global warming. Whenever that happens, then it is possible for that to be the topic we are talking about. The only stable point in this system of dialogue - unless I'm missing something - is to be talking calamity, because any other time there is not a conversation to have. I guess (and I have been trying to see if this can operate without respect to strengths and weaknesses on any side in technical technique or policy publicity) most people are going to trend toward giving it credit unless the climatic normalcy is simply unchinkable, but that is the one thing that normalcy never steps up to be.

By neil on 31 March 2010 · 11:04

A is A

Re^2: Climate change: the punchline slipped out a bit early

I insist that “Talking Calamity” be the name of my second, poorly received, but widely recycled, biography. An experimental work consisting of nothing but mother jokes and footnotes penned by angry Cougars. Dennis Perrin will do color but only because my will bequeaths him a significant stipend providing he makes the Signum Crucis every time he mentions professional sports and never explains why.

By A is A on 31 March 2010 · 20:01