Originally posted by astrocreep
So, then any change from the status quo is climate disruption? Look, I'm not advocating pollution of air or water, actually just the opposite, but
when we look at the Earth's history, we see evidence of much more pronounced changes than we are seeing now.
- I don't disagree with you that change has been part of the natural story of earth, clearly this is visible in the historical record.
But so what?
Continental-sized forest fires have been a regular part of earth's history too but for all that they remain hugely damaging and not something I or
anyone in their right mind would recommend or discount as of little or no consequence just because they have happened naturally quite often before all
over the globe.
I can full well accept the nasty localized effects of man but to pretend we do not live on an ever changing and very dynamic planet is
...well..its just uneducated..for lack of a better word.
- As I said, on the specific point regarding change and previous events I am not in disagreement with you.
In many regards tackling the 'localised' effects is to tackle the global effects anyway so where is the conflict in the idea here?
Air and environmental pollution, energy and resource conservation, forest conservation and renewal to name a few for instance.
Equally I would suggest that to discount the continual pressure (in one direction alone) and changes this is causing globally is...well...just
Let me ask you a question point blank and see if I get a straight answer since you seem to be on the global warming agenda.
- Feel free.
Do you discount all other factors which might cause this planet's climate to change including changing solar cycles and changes in the
- I don't deny that other natural factors can arise periodically cause and contribute to climate change. They tend to operate on long cyclical
timescales though. Much longer than the periods we are seeing rises in average temperatures now.
Do you not accept that the 300 year warming trend since the Little Ice Age at the end of the mid-evil era preceeded the rise in CO2
- Of course.
I would not and have not suggested single factors are at work or that similar circumstances cannot arise due to a combination of other unrelated
But in any case what of it? Interesting debating point as it might be are you suggesting that the detail of the mini ice age means it's ok to
carrying on causing the dumping of several billion gallons of fresh water into the northern atlantic as if it were 'a good thing' and free from all
Do you assert the notion that a portion of Earth's surface should be covered ice permanently ..and furthermore put forth the notion that it
always has been?
As I said, looking at the historical record one can find all sorts of extreme conditions have arisen 'naturally' at various points.
Who is denying this? I am not.
I am asserting that the evidence points towards mankind causing serious global weather disruption by a continual pressure on the various 'systems'
in one direction alone.
We pour billions
of tons of various gasses into the atmosphere and continue to act as if this has no consequence whatsoever even though we know
these gasses have observable effects. We destroy balances in the 'system' even though study now shows what such imbalances have caused in the past
when they have happened naturally.
The 'atlantic conveyor' has been interrupted (naturally) many times before and the effects of it happening to 'our world' (as in all of our world)
To ignore this and carry on regardless strikes me as totally insane.
Those who have commentated on the planet's ability to survive mankinds mistakes and meddling are, of course, quite correct. The planet has seen and
survived much worse and probably will again without man's help.(...if we bother our asses we might learn how to handle the issue of the danger of
impact but that's about it I believe.....if
However we are supposed to be blessed with an intellect that allows us to see what we have been doing and to take note and alter our self-harming
behaviour.....for the sake of our own survival, welfare, economic and social systems.
It might even be that mankind as a species could or even would survive an extended period of unstable extreme weather conditions but I'd suggest it
unlikely we could survive in a condition any of us would recognise......it might even be that other 'natural' factors are also adding to the whole
disruption of the climate we face, in which case I still see no reason not to stop throwing fuel on the fire and look for ways and means to reduce the
impact of the fire in every practical way possible.
Now I'd like to ask you a question.....
Why do you think that almost the entire scientific world agrees with the idea of 'global warming' now.....many of whom have been persuaded to this
The idea of it being some sort of nationally based and biased or anti-capatalist based 'plot' is absurd.....so, why then? What do you think it is
really all about?
How does recycling etc equate to personal control?
[edit on 4-10-2004 by sminkeypinkey]