Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGY5ODY5Njk1NTVjNzU5NDF...=

or something.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Isaac Citrom
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

It makes you wonder. For all the rush and panic, the truth is, climate change--if real--is a very slow-moving catastrophe. Moreover, it happens to align with an ideological and political agenda the Left has been pushing for generations: Unregulated economic growth is bad and must be reigned in by experts; nature is our master, and we must be her servants. What a convenient truth for environmentalists.

Meanwhile, a "deep impact" is a terribly inconvenient threat, partly because it requires making peace with the idea that nature can’t be conquered.

Better to not even think about it.


I think about it sometimes. The Siberia strike was not at all long ago. Currently, this stands sort of like science fiction. That is, until an object on collision course is actually spotted. Then it will be all too real.

That is to say, if the distant and perhaps nebulous threat of AGW warrants the current near hysteric response, you'd think that an object collision, which is perhaps more likely in the near term, ought to warrant some similar concern.

As the article's author states, the Lefty politics of the matter don't align up well with respect to an object collision. It's funny how the scientific data concerning object collisions seems unimportant in comparison to scientific data concerning AGW. The feeling to mitigate the risk for one potential life-ending catastrophe seems non-existant while the feeling to mitigate risk for the other has some people jumping up and down. In my mind it really shines a light on the true underlying motivation for the AGW hysteria (as I would put it).
.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Doing a better job of detecting meteors that could possibly strike the Earth would only cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and it's something scientists have been calling for for a long time. Without any actual support from the right. Now their lack of funding for this is the excuse not to address climate change? Good grief.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To be fair, the chances of being hit by a signifigantly damaging near earth object is less than .05% in the next century. The chance of anthropologic climate change effecting us in the next century is much, much higher. Not to mention millions of dollars on observation of NEOs will only predict our doom, not give us a course of action. Carbon reduction should, if you accept the scientific theory, reduce ACC and improve the lives of our descendents.

I'd support funding towards both, but I see far more effect coming from climate change dollars.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oh, and being freaked out because something hit Jupiter is idiotic. The reason we're not constantly pelted by meteorites of signifigant mass is because Jupiter's gravity well attracts most incoming bits. It's been doing it for millions upon millions of years, and is certainly an absolutely essential aspect to the establishment of life on this relatively mild rock.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
I'd support funding towards both, but I see far more effect coming from climate change dollars.


Per dollar, investing in tracking of near-earth objects is probably even more cost-effective. We definitely should do this.

That's not any kind of reason not to deal with climate change, which is thousands of times more expensive to address.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
isaacc wrote:


As the article's author states, the Lefty politics of the matter don't align up well with respect to an object collision. It's funny how the scientific data concerning object collisions seems unimportant in comparison to scientific data concerning AGW. The feeling to mitigate the risk for one potential life-ending catastrophe seems non-existant while the feeling to mitigate risk for the other has some people jumping up and down. In my mind it really shines a light on the true underlying motivation for the AGW hysteria (as I would put it).
.


The scientific data regarding object collisions is not nearly as dire than what the data say about AGW.

Chances that the Earth is warming with serious detrimental effects to humans over the next 100 years: 100%

Chances that an asteroid of over 1,000 meters will strike Earth this century: 0.0002%

Chances that an asteroid of ~ 100m will strike Earth this century: 2%

Of course, these are just estimates, but they clearly demonstrate where our priorities should be placed. Besides, we already spend millions of dollars tracking near Earth asteroids.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
George Kinney
United States
Bellefontaine
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Zaphod wrote:
Of course, these are just estimates, but they clearly demonstrate where our priorities should be placed. Besides, we already spend millions of dollars tracking near Earth asteroids.


And once we spot one incoming, we have not the slightest, foggiest idea of what to do about it. Plenty of hypothesizing over the years, not a shred of actual useful planning though.

Better to put our effort where we can actually have some effect.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gecko23 wrote:
Zaphod wrote:
Of course, these are just estimates, but they clearly demonstrate where our priorities should be placed. Besides, we already spend millions of dollars tracking near Earth asteroids.


And once we spot one incoming, we have not the slightest, foggiest idea of what to do about it. Plenty of hypothesizing over the years, not a shred of actual useful planning though.

Better to put our effort where we can actually have some effect.


Useful data, or in this case, "useful plans" comes out of hypothesizing and discussion. Science does not move quickly.....but that doesn't mean we can't have an effect on an incoming asteroid at some point in the future.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Not to derail the thread, but I was listening to an astronomer on the radio. He was talking about related topics. He said that for the last few decades meteors have been striking and demolishing buildings in his native New England at a rate of one every 18 months.


Was he high as a kite at the time?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Koldfoot wrote:
Demolishing was too strong of a word, I was in a hurry. As I have had time to ruminate, I think it was insurance companies paying out claims for meteorite damage at a rate of about one claim every 18 months in New England.


That still seems too high. Maybe it was one claim every 18 months in the entire US? Then probably about 5% of those would be in New England (since it has about 5% of the US population).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David desJardins
United States
Burlingame
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gecko23 wrote:
And once we spot one incoming, we have not the slightest, foggiest idea of what to do about it.


Our leaders do.



5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.