Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: No more NYT [View all]

Caliman73

(11,690 posts)
13. Actually, the planet does not need to be saved.
Tue May 2, 2017, 07:13 PM
May 2017

The planet has been around for 4.6 billion years. It has been baked, flooded, frozen, gotten the shit knocked out of it by asteroids and comets, been a carbon dioxide filled greenhouse, a sulfur dioxide filled wasteland, and much more.

What needs to be saved are our delicate asses. Humans, other animals, and plants can only survive if our environment is within a certain range. We are knocking it out of the range of habitability much faster than it might have done naturally. What we do is to save us, not this metal cored ball wrapped in molten rock, with a little bit of water and a tiny mantle of rock and some miles of gasses that allow us to exist. The planet will be fine in another few hundred thousand years, a geological blink of an eye. We will be gone in a century or two if we do not act to save our own asses now.

No more NYT [View all] kpete May 2017 OP
Op-Ed pages are supposed to be diverse creeksneakers2 May 2017 #1
so if someone says the world is flat Skittles May 2017 #3
So what if they do say its flat? creeksneakers2 May 2017 #10
ridiculous Skittles May 2017 #11
Fox News it what it is creeksneakers2 May 2017 #24
No, it is what it is because hosts lie to present one spooky3 May 2017 #26
The Supreme Court has protected false speech creeksneakers2 May 2017 #41
YOU DON'T GIVE EQUAL TIME TO CRANKS Skittles May 2017 #49
Yeah, not a great argument. Sorry. WinkyDink May 2017 #14
Even op-eds should be fact checked sharedvalues May 2017 #28
It was fact checked creeksneakers2 May 2017 #39
New Yorker wld have rejected it sharedvalues May 2017 #46
Finally cancelled my NYT Worktodo May 2017 #47
Good for you sharedvalues May 2017 #48
This isn't an issue about which there is legitimately a diversity of opinion Spider Jerusalem May 2017 #4
One reason science is as good as it is creeksneakers2 May 2017 #7
Sorry, but... Spider Jerusalem May 2017 #9
All those things you say are true creeksneakers2 May 2017 #21
"All"? Do you suppose the Heliocentric Theory, e.g., is "up for challenge"? WinkyDink May 2017 #16
It would be difficult to beat it creeksneakers2 May 2017 #22
One big difference you're forgetting athena May 2017 #31
The analyses creeksneakers2 May 2017 #33
Do you have children? athena May 2017 #34
Wow! creeksneakers2 May 2017 #36
Do you also believe athena May 2017 #42
The responses to the editorial creeksneakers2 May 2017 #45
That is patently false. athena May 2017 #19
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word all creeksneakers2 May 2017 #20
Solid, accepted results don't get disproven. athena May 2017 #25
Climate change was not established centuries ago creeksneakers2 May 2017 #27
That doesn't mean the NYTimes should give a platform to someone who is pushing pnwmom May 2017 #35
Did you read it? creeksneakers2 May 2017 #37
Yes, and I also read this: pnwmom May 2017 #40
Stephens and the scientists at your link and you creeksneakers2 May 2017 #43
Stephens isn't a climate scientist and lacks the educational background to debate pnwmom May 2017 #44
Stephens isn't debating climate change creeksneakers2 May 2017 #50
He's debating the CAUSES of climate change and how much human activity is a factor. n/t pnwmom May 2017 #51
I don't see that there creeksneakers2 May 2017 #54
He has a long history. For example: pnwmom May 2017 #55
Alarmist creeksneakers2 May 2017 #56
Not so diverse that they include FAKE SCIENCE. n/t pnwmom May 2017 #5
I read the Op-Ed creeksneakers2 May 2017 #23
"supposed to be diverse" tenderfoot May 2017 #15
I heard a report that said eating boogers is good for you. creeksneakers2 May 2017 #38
Yes. elleng May 2017 #32
It's a shame that scientists can't be fair and balanced dalton99a May 2017 #2
.. Cha May 2017 #6
Warped? NurseJackie May 2017 #8
At this point we can't save the planet... hunter May 2017 #12
Actually, the planet does not need to be saved. Caliman73 May 2017 #13
I'm a paleontologist and evolutionary biologist by inclination and much formal training. hunter May 2017 #17
Sad but true. Caliman73 May 2017 #18
"Much more likely we end up dead dirt that will never be sifted, eternally forgotten." CrispyQ May 2017 #53
We could theoretically use railguns to launch discs between us LittleBlue May 2017 #52
You're too smart to do such, elleng May 2017 #29
NYT must print facts, even in op-eds - so says New Yorker sharedvalues May 2017 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No more NYT»Reply #13