If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Republic)   Jerry Brown say humans may live on another planet if global warming continues. Perhaps we could all live on his planet   (therepublic.com) divider line 71
    More: Weird, Jerry Brown  
•       •       •

1707 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 8:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 01:02:47 PM  

mat catastrophe: dready zim: mat catastrophe: California above all others.

Uber alles?

Yes.

/feels like you ruined the joke for some reason


thats what i was thinking :(
 
2012-11-19 01:07:57 PM  

GranoblasticMan: Clemkadidlefark: TheMysteriousStranger: Brown's planet is called Reality. Someday, deniers might actually try to land on it.

Bwa-hahahahaha

Can't read, huh?

Planet as been cooling for 16 years.

Fascinating theory.


its as valid as global warming, unfortunately the quickly referenced citation was on infowars, and I do not trust that scource for anything, but like a broken clock it is right 2 times a day.
 
2012-11-19 01:13:43 PM  

SgtArkie: its as valid as global warming,


That's like saying "It's snowing outside right now" is as equally valid as saying "It is a clear sunny day". Either the earth is warming or cooling, and you can easily figure out which just by taking enough temperature readings in enough places over time.
 
2012-11-19 02:12:33 PM  
Sorry, assuming global warming is as awesome as lefties/planet worshippers/etc. keeps saying, then that means that we'll have land development available in Northern Canada and Siberia for the first time. And maybe even the Antarctic eventually.
 
2012-11-19 02:40:30 PM  

Jarhead_h: Sorry, assuming global warming is as awesome as lefties/planet worshippers/etc. keeps saying, then that means that we'll have land development available in Northern Canada and Siberia for the first time. And maybe even the Antarctic eventually.


Yeah, it IS an interesting quandary. For most enviros climate change is BAD, but from what I've read it's not nearly that cut-n-dried. For the price of a few Pacific islands we can have millions of hectares more arable land. Moreover, Oz and North Africa might get wetter, vastly increasing their ag potential. Other places that get too much water might dry out a bit, making them them better ag land, too.

Too often the enviros appear to want the maintain the status quo for ill defined reasons, when change might be a net positive.
 
2012-11-19 02:53:13 PM  

Stone Meadow: Yeah, it IS an interesting quandary. For most enviros climate change is BAD, but from what I've read it's not nearly that cut-n-dried. For the price of a few Pacific islands we can have millions of hectares more arable land. Moreover, Oz and North Africa might get wetter, vastly increasing their ag potential. Other places that get too much water might dry out a bit, making them them better ag land, too.

Too often the enviros appear to want the maintain the status quo for ill defined reasons, when change might be a net positive.


It's more than just a few pacific islands. More than 3 billion people live near the coasts, and thus will be affected by rising sea levels. Combine that with more extreme weather events from global warming such a more and bigger hurricanes, and you are looking at untold damage just from that. Add in all the desertification that global warming will add on top of land lost under the ocean and suddenly it's less certain there will be any real land gains. Also, the Sahara desert is growing and I understand that global warming is amplifying that effect, not making the desert more habitable.
 
2012-11-19 03:20:34 PM  
Note: Male Mormons will still each get their own planet to breed on to their hearts content.

Seeing as environmental scientists think we may already need four to five planets to give the current population of the Earth enough resources to live like it is the God Given Right of Americans and all other free peoples to live, we have to hope they are right.

Of course, there's no telling what will happen when those planets fill up.

By the way, I was wondering. Exactly how does all that breeding work? With one family per planet, just like in the days of Adam and Eve, it must involve a certain amount of incest.

Is incest really best? If the fall in life expectancies from Adam to Abraham is any indication, I would think there might be a downside, even with an infinity of planets. After all, some Mormons may very well have perfect genomes, especially since they will include all of our ancestors by then. At some point, there must have been at least one human male with no genetic tares at all, after all, many royal families bred successfully for centuries. I know of one in the New World which was considered quasi-divine because they did. Presumably all of those Mormon colonies will go extinct except for the lucky one which can breed incestuously forever. These will spread over the Universe to keep the hill billy sister-banging down to distant cousins a few hundred times removed.

Oh, well, I'll leave the details to those who seriously believe that we can do this. They'll be the first into the cooking pot, come the world wide crash, should they prove wrong.
 
2012-11-19 03:35:53 PM  

Gwyrddu: Stone Meadow: Yeah, it IS an interesting quandary. For most enviros climate change is BAD, but from what I've read it's not nearly that cut-n-dried. For the price of a few Pacific islands we can have millions of hectares more arable land. Moreover, Oz and North Africa might get wetter, vastly increasing their ag potential. Other places that get too much water might dry out a bit, making them them better ag land, too.

Too often the enviros appear to want the maintain the status quo for ill defined reasons, when change might be a net positive.

It's more than just a few pacific islands. More than 3 billion people live near the coasts, and thus will be affected by rising sea levels. Combine that with more extreme weather events from global warming such a more and bigger hurricanes, and you are looking at untold damage just from that. Add in all the desertification that global warming will add on top of land lost under the ocean and suddenly it's less certain there will be any real land gains. Also, the Sahara desert is growing and I understand that global warming is amplifying that effect, not making the desert more habitable.


The earth has been warming and the oceans have been rising for nearly 20,000 years, and many studies show they will continue to do so purely from natural causes. Odds are it will end within the next few millennium, and reverse course, but for now there is nothing we can do to stop it.

www.globalwarmingart.com

That is enough reason right there for humans to take care to stabilize our collective shorelines. We don't have to resort to manufactured panic, call for an end to growth, or even impose draconian anti-CO2 measures. Shiat's gonna happen, but we'll make it through this, too.
 
2012-11-19 04:48:44 PM  

Stone Meadow: The earth has been warming and the oceans have been rising for nearly 20,000 years, and many studies show they will continue to do so purely from natural causes. Odds are it will end within the next few millennium, and reverse course, but for now there is nothing we can do to stop it.


There is a lot of things we can do to exacerbate the problem though. Just because we didn't cause the stab wound doesn't mean we should pick at it.

That is enough reason right there for humans to take care to stabilize our collective shorelines. We don't have to resort to manufactured panic, call for an end to growth, or even impose draconian anti-CO2 measures. Shiat's gonna happen, but we'll make it through this, too.

None of those things are necessary to go on an environmental friendly path we should travel on even if global warming didn't exist. Oil is only going to get more expensive after all, and solutions that reduce CO2 emissions for example will probably also be more economical in the long run. There is good reason to nudge corporations into making green decisions that will actually help them over the long term.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:30 PM  

Gwyrddu: Stone Meadow: The earth has been warming and the oceans have been rising for nearly 20,000 years, and many studies show they will continue to do so purely from natural causes. Odds are it will end within the next few millennium, and reverse course, but for now there is nothing we can do to stop it.

There is a lot of things we can do to exacerbate the problem though. Just because we didn't cause the stab wound doesn't mean we should pick at it.


"We" have been doing lots about it for years. Better fuel economy. Lower smokestack emissions. Dramatic increases in renewable energy use, etc., but the conservation efforts of the West pale in comparison to the growth in emissions of the developing world. Here's a chart showing China now has 50% higher CO2 emissions than the US, which is a MUCH bigger economy. India, Brazil and others are hot on China's heals. My point is that any savings we can realize are a drop in the bucket compared to the flow of new, off shore emissions.

Therefore, I think it's wasted effort for us to go overboard about the mote in our eye, while ignoring the beam in theirs.
 
2012-11-19 05:24:28 PM  
We should ridicule people that dream big. Only way they'll learn.
 
2012-11-19 05:26:17 PM  

Stone Meadow: Here's a chart showing China now has 50% highersurpassing US CO2 emissions than the US, which is a MUCH bigger economy.


images.wri.org 

Fixed...clicked add comment too soon.
 
2012-11-19 06:31:56 PM  
I do not sign off for a moment on this global warming scam, but if it were true it would be good for humanity.

There are 7 billion people on the planet and most of them are very hungry, so anything which lengthens the growing season is a good deal as far as I am concerned. If crops could be planted in Siberia and Canada farther north than is practical now, that would be excellent too.

It has been warmer than it is now at least 3 times in the last 2000 years, but the problem is: It has also been colder, by a very wide margin.

If it turns cold in 100 years, and we have 12 billion people to feed, and all our crops are custom--designed to thrive in abnormally warm weather, the growing season shrinks and arable land is decreased, that would be a real catastrophe in every sense of the word.
 
2012-11-19 08:20:01 PM  

mod3072: So they are going to put all 7 billion of us on one ship and take us there? Sounds crowded.


No, they're going to put us on three ships.

Your berth will be on the second of the three arks. The 'B' ark.
 
2012-11-19 08:58:18 PM  

olddinosaur: I do not sign off for a moment on this global warming scam, but if it were true it would be good for humanity.

There are 7 billion people on the planet and most of them are very hungry, so anything which lengthens the growing season is a good deal as far as I am concerned. If crops could be planted in Siberia and Canada farther north than is practical now, that would be excellent too.

It has been warmer than it is now at least 3 times in the last 2000 years, but the problem is: It has also been colder, by a very wide margin.

If it turns cold in 100 years, and we have 12 billion people to feed, and all our crops are custom--designed to thrive in abnormally warm weather, the growing season shrinks and arable land is decreased, that would be a real catastrophe in every sense of the word.


Good thoughts here, but should we extrapolate by having perfect growing conditions for an additonal 100 years, then there will just be that many more hungry people for when the planet burps, raising or lowering the temps by five degrees. Thus, by having ideal conditions, we only delay the inevitable, and in the delay, additional billions will be born only to starve after the last resources are depleted.

Solutions? I dont' have any. Neither does anybody. The 22nd Century is gonna suck.

/Gonna hide behind my gigantic stone Mayan Calender and rid it all out. Bwahahahaha!
 
2012-11-19 09:18:21 PM  
How many of you Farkers have been to a different continent?

North America is extremely clean compared to Asia, any where in Asia. Period. Nope, cleaner than that.

Even if you judged European capitals by New York city, we'd beat them. Scandinavian capitals are a push.

Hell, you can drink our tap water. You can breath our air, with out chewing first.

We only think we are dirty.
 
2012-11-19 09:37:53 PM  

Slam1263: Even if you judged European capitals by New York city, we'd beat them. Scandinavian capitals are a push.


I'd have to disagree with you on that one. I mean NYC does have much tighter smoking laws that make it easier on non-smokers, but other than the European capitals I've seen generally win on cleanliness (which would be Berlin, Paris and Prague, and Amsterdam). Not having to deal with the aroma of urine and/or vomit in the NYC subway system, nor the rats or the huge waterbugs that would randomly pop up in the city or a the ton of homeless makes me definitely put Europe above the NYC streets I grew up on.
 
2012-11-19 09:47:45 PM  

Gwyrddu: Slam1263: Even if you judged European capitals by New York city, we'd beat them. Scandinavian capitals are a push.

I'd have to disagree with you on that one. I mean NYC does have much tighter smoking laws that make it easier on non-smokers, but other than the European capitals I've seen generally win on cleanliness (which would be Berlin, Paris and Prague, and Amsterdam). Not having to deal with the aroma of urine and/or vomit in the NYC subway system, nor the rats or the huge waterbugs that would randomly pop up in the city or a the ton of homeless makes me definitely put Europe above the NYC streets I grew up on.


Also, one more thing that leaves no doubt as to how unclean NYC is was when I was young and sailing back into the Lower Bay with my father and we could see the huge billowing cloud of brown smog roll off the island of Manhattan into the water, towering far above even the Twin Towers and the Empire State Building. And this is a city where the nearby water should easily exchange the air column over the city, I'd hate to see the crap that people in places like Los Angeles are breathing.
 
2012-11-20 12:04:15 PM  
Giving up on Luke 12:48 now, Gov Brown?
 
2012-11-20 10:23:28 PM  

Gwyrddu: Ima4nic8or: Just when I was starting to think Brown is a semi-normal guy he comes out with this crap. I was hoping that in his old age he wouldnt have these dipshiat hippy ideas. Man made global warming does not exist. The planet is going to be just dandy.

You seem pretty certain of that for some reason. Yet most scientists, insurance companies and even the Navy all not only know that the Earth is getting warmer but use that information to more effectively do their job. It is also well known that the amount of greenhouse gases has been increasing over time along with the average global temperature. It is also known that the presence of greenhouse gases traps heat in the atmosphere and thus has effect on global temperature.

Things do get more complicated from there. We do know human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels releases large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. There are also plenty of other CO2 sources and sinks in the world as well, one of those sinks being forests, especially the amazon rain forest which we've cut down a lot of thus removing a major feedback loop that could slow global warming.

But it is legitimate to question how much global warming is due to human influence and how much is naturally occurring. But just because there may be natural occurring global warming doesn't mean we aren't or that we should help it along. And just because the earth will be fine doesn't mean human civilization will be fine. Jerry Brown I think was exaggerating on the effects of global warming, but it is clear that global warming will be and probably already has been an expensive proposition, more expensive than actually doing something about it.

And that is not even including all the side benefits of efficiency of green technology. Technologies that waste less resources are just likely to become more profitable as traditional energy sources inevitably become more expensive.


Have you ever looked into the externalities of solar power? Wind power?

I want solar panels to be efficient, as of today, 20 November 2012, any solar cell, in any array, will produce less electricity than was consumed in its production.

If we were serious about wind power, we would be using verticle blade designs.

All we are doing is handing taxpayer money to very large corporations for, well, what the hell are we paying very large corporation for?
 
2012-11-20 10:30:04 PM  

Krieghund: mod3072: So they are going to put all 7 billion of us on one ship and take us there? Sounds crowded.

No, they're going to put us on three ships.

Your berth will be on the second of the three arks. The 'B' ark.


I'm a telephone sanitizer also, but I sell drugs on the side, so it'll be the A ship for me.
 
Displayed 21 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report