Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
- - - - -

Earth +6C fatal?

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#16 Ameya P

Ameya P

    Rervm Cognoscere Cavsas

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 06 October 2010 - 10:01 PM

2-How humanity should allocate our limited and finite resources.

I do not think we have finite resources to address this situation. Recession/ No recession, money is made and we can spend as much as we want to work on a solution towards this problem (if we accept that it is a problem and want to act)

We definitely have to buy-time and change the attitude of people. We need to encourage people to reduce wastes and recycle more. I don't quite know how wise it is to pump CO2 underground.

But yes, we should inculcate "greener" habits and educate others around us, especially the elder generation along with the younger one to mitigate the effects of our day-today activities....

NEW!!!! Would you donate your poop for a loved one? on CoffeeTableScience!!!! 

Image copyright: Adrian Koh SF.
Replication of this art is strictly prohibited without express permission of the artist

#17 Phil Geis

Phil Geis


  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts

Posted 11 April 2011 - 10:38 PM

Debate is probably the right word. Stoichiometry of emissions says the green chemistry and related efforts are insufficient to address emissions so as to prevent such dire predictions if they were indeed to take place. It is important to note the some of Gore's fellow Nobel recipients objected to the dire predictions he anticipated - noting he'd been proven wrong too many times to make such projections on current models.

Edited by Phil Geis, 11 April 2011 - 10:38 PM.

Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.