NASA separates itself from "Climate Disaster" report

Hot on the heels of the recent announcement that the American Physical Society has appointed Lindzen, Christy and Curry to a panel setting guidelines for AGW research and reporting, comes this rejection of alarmist media propaganda:

A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA.
It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions."

www.space.com...

Are reason and logic returning to our discussion of the Earth, environment and adaptation?
Don't count on it.

deny ignprance

jw

I don't blame NASA for not wanting to back this paper. The paper is probably true, but I don't think that NASA should take sides on this subject.

reply to post by jdub297


But they did fund it

There is a piece over at WUWT on this happening with 111 comments and links inside . wattsupwiththat.com... g/

reply to post by jdub297

Are reason and logic returning to our discussion of the Earth, environment and adaptation?

I am guessing because these subjects will(have to) include climate science , which will include politics, which will include conspiracy theories…. And NASA just doesn't want to be attached to this ride.
I find the information from the referenced study interesting:

Predator vs Prey

The balance of nature

The model they arrived at takes inspiration from the classic notion of predator vs. prey, sometimes referred to as the "balance of nature." When a deer population grows, for instance, the wolves that feed on those deer reproduce more successfully, too, and so the wolf population grows.

Everything is fine until the wolves become too numerous and overreach, eating so many deer that there isn't enough venison to go around. Then, as the number of deer plunges, the wolf population drops due to famine, until equilibrium is reestablished and the cycle begins anew.

It makes sense that this balance can be affected to such a detriment that the demands simply cannot be met. We have multiple forces at work for resources, general consumption, maximized profit seeking(greed), ownership and natural disaster all eat away at our resources and at some point there won't be enough for everyone, or most. So many resources are biological which depends on systems involving many connecting factors, making the ecological balance, particularly on a global scale, so important.

The Income Gap

"The scenarios most closely reflecting the reality of our world today are found in the third group of experiments, where we introduced economic stratification," the researchers wrote, referring to uneven wealth distribution. "Under such conditions, we find that collapse is difficult to avoid."

It can't even bring this up these days without being lambasted as a liberal agenda, forget common sense and balance.
I don't know what to offer for this, but I ask those that are adamantly against ANY redistribution….would there ever be a point to where it is a concern. Imo, that point is when our choices become so limited we have no options to truly thrive, independently or collectively.

Not all is lost, however: Societies can moderate the two factors that contribute most to social meltdown: the exploitation of natural resources and the uneven distribution of wealth, the researchers said.

"Collapse can be avoided and population can reach equilibrium if the per-capita rate of depletion of nature is reduced to a sustainable level, and if resources are distributed in a reasonably equitable fashion," they wrote.

www.livescience.com...

An altruistic and transparent One World Government and planetary hemp production may be the only answers.

reply to post by jdub297


“The entire ecosystem is crashing,” Dennis Bushnell, chief scientist of NASA’s Langley Research Center said Thursday. “Essentially, there’s too many of us. We’ve been far too successful as the human animal. People allege we’re short 40-50 percent of a planet now. As the Asians and their billions come up to our living systems, we’re going to need three more planets.”

Also, the report does not focus entirely on climate related issues.

Aqualung2012
reply to post by jdub297

 

But they did fund it

I have not had the time to scan all the different articles that came out in the past 2 days. Did NASA fund it or did they just sponsor it? The quote in the Guardian only said 'sponsored'.

A new study sponsored by Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution. source www.theguardian.com...

Quoting myself,

This story has legs, as they say.

If Goddard sponsored something, well, there would be public records available detailing the sponsorship process. There would be a sponsorship committee at Goddard, with members and a chairman. Sponsorships do not happen automatically, they are well thought out.