Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
There is very little evidence to suggest global warming is a natural process. If it is then why do scientists and mainstream media constantly
bombard us with "lets save the earth before it is too late"?
I realise your question was hypothetical but how can we discuss a different theory which has very little credibility? In all sincerity, sir, I
believe only the elite industrialists and corporate pawns can possibly tolerate killing millions/billions with gross negligence just so they can save
on operating costs and thus increase profits.
It's been a while since I originally posted the OP, but I want to re-visit this...
You sort of touched on my 'Devil's Advocate' argument exactly: If millions of humans decided recently (say the past 5000 years) to build their
civilizations and their cities along coastlines, then it is the fault of those humans if the oceans begin to intrude on those cities beacuse of the
ice caps melting due to completely natural means
such as cyclical global warming. Sure, polar bears may become extinct (and that's
truly too bad), but other (and new) species may thrive.
-- if Global Warming IS a truly natural occurance, who are we as humans to interfere with that natural occurance? As
ATS member 'animal' stated, we would be very arrogant to even attempt to mess with the Earth's natural cycles (even if we could), and more than
likely, we would end up doing more harm than good.
I'm 100% for reducing pollution and greenhouse emmissions -- that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is if we found out that
Global Warming is natural, and we had the technology to "cool" the planet to prevent our coastal cities from being flooded and to (for example) save
the polar bear, should we do it?
I think that an Eco-minded person should say "no". An Eco-minded person should instead say "if the coastal cities become flooded, then it's the
fault of those who built there; if the polar bear is bound to extinction, then it's because of nature" (such as was the extinction of the
I think the CORRECT eco-friendly course of action to take under those circumstances would be to let the coastal cities flood and the polar bear
naturally go extinct.
Try to put aside your personal beliefs to answer this one. If anyone has taken a high-level debating course, you would understand that your personal
beliefs really don't apply when you are trying to debate an issue.
...and by the way, the argument about scientists claiming the anthropomorphic cause of global warming can be easily countered by an equal number of
scientists who claim otherwise...and the mainstream media just wants to sell their product, so I don't give the media much credence.
[edit on 8/5/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]