General > General info Somewhat hot tub related
My hot tub is getting warmer
anne:
--- Quote ---That being said, I do wish you watch the video. Should you watch it you will see that the earth is simply passing through another period as it has done in it's past of heating.
Yes, mankind has effected planet Earth! No, Global Warming is not one of those effects.
--- End quote ---
I think that it is foolish to say that anyone KNOWS with any certainty what the cause is. There are going to be people with "proof" on each side of the argument. I'm not going to watch one video, and accept it for fact. I'm also not going to watch Gore's movie and accept it for fact. I question anyone who clings too vehemently to either side of the argument for their motivation.
It is much safer to assume that human pollution and activity *could* contribute to global warming than to assume that it does not. That is not to say that using scare tactics and paranoia to make people change is appropriate. As Boni put so elequently, and as I stated so gruffly, global warming is just one (possible) aspect of mankind's damage to the earth, and there are plenty of other ways that we have forever changed this planet. If concern over global warming wakes people up and we lighten our heavy tread over nature because of it, all the better.
Campsalot:
Here is a corrected and/or new link to the video!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=The+Great+Globa+Warming+Swindle
Also I want to clarify! I have seen Al Gores documentary. I have obviously seen the video I posted. I also am a very big believer in "common sense", something I think is severely lacking throughout our country today. Common sense says that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Thats 4,500,000,000 years or look at it this way 4.5 X 109 yrs or (on a calculator) 4.5E9 yrs (1 billion in scientific notation means 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10!) This is a HUGE number!
Man has been present on this earth for only 6 million years! (A very smal number compared to the age of the earth) Truly we have been only in a huge industrial mode(read killing the earth with nasty by-products) for the last 200 years. Do you really think, keeping in mind all of the huge monstrous natural disasters that have occurred in our planets 4.5 billion year history that mankind's paltry 200 year history of pollution actually is changing our climate?
Bonibelle:
Key words: Natural disasters and Man made disasters (ongoing)
As far as you know were there any "natural disasters" that occurred as the result of nuclear fission in the last 1.5 billion years?? ::)
Reese:
--- Quote ---Do you really think, keeping in mind all of the huge monstrous natural disasters that have occurred in our planets 4.5 billion year history that mankind's paltry 200 year history of pollution actually is changing our climate?
--- End quote ---
A quick search indicates that a strong majority of the scientists that do study climate have concerns, and feel that potential remedies need to be evaluated. It also appears that a similar percentage of other scientists that have looked at the information feel the same way. Other than the swindle movie (which took some if the interviews out of context, and edited to support thier conclusion), one professor at MIT, and an oil industry trade group (I wonder why they dispute the need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels ::)), there is very little to support your position -- as opposed to several credible studies that support the concerns about global warming. It appears that over 80% of the American public also has concerns, which may explain why even conservative politicians are proposing environmental initiatives. Evidently you, Terminator, Thearm, and the others that were quick to jump on the "hoax" bandwagon are smarter/better informed than the vast majority, including most of the people who study climate. :-/ I suspect this has more to do with politics than science.
Regardless of your take on global warming, do you think that a renewed focus on energy conservation, increased use of renewable fuels and developing alternative energy sources to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and trying to limit the amount of pollutants put into the atmosphere are bad things? :-?
anne:
--- Quote ---Man has been present on this earth for only 6 million years! (A very smal number compared to the age of the earth) Truly we have been only in a huge industrial mode(read killing the earth with nasty by-products) for the last 200 years. Do you really think, keeping in mind all of the huge monstrous natural disasters that have occurred in our planets 4.5 billion year history that mankind's paltry 200 year history of pollution actually is changing our climate?
--- End quote ---
I look at that VERY differently. It scares the hell out of me to look at the amount of change (species extinction, pollution and destruction, altering of lakes/rivers, waste) that we have caused in ONLY 200 years. Look, I was a ecology/biology major: this was the sort of thing I could have spouted on with a lot more accuracy 10 years ago. I still say it is foolish to refute the idea that we COULD be responsible for global warming. Climate changes should NOT necessarily be measurable over human generations, but rather over thousands of years. I'll quote Edward O Wilson as a better source of information than myself:
In regards to the theories of global warming and debate:
"First rule of the history of science: when a big, new, persuasive idea is proposed, and army of critics soon gathers and tries to tear it down. Such a reaction is unavoidable because, aggressive yet abiding by the rules of civil discourse, that is simply how scientists work. It is further true that, faced with adversity, proponents will harden their resolve and struggle to make the case more convincing. Being human, most scientists conform to the psychological Principle of Certainty, which says that when there is evidence both for and against a belief, the result is not a lessening, but a heightening of conviction on both sides."
Seems like we're just in the middle of the scuffle.
In regards to mankind's effect on the world's species in such a short time:
"...The Cretaceous extinction was only one of five such catastrophes that occurred over the last half-billion years.......the five mass extinctions occurred in this order, according to geological period and time before the present: Ordovician, 440 million years; Devonian, 365 million years; Permian, 245 million years; Triassic, 210 million years, and Cretaceous, 66 million years. ....
...To summarize, life was impoverished in five major events, and to a lesser degree here and there around the world in countless other episodes. After each down turn it recovered to at least the original level of diversity. How long did it take for evolution to restore the losses? ......In general, five million years was enough only for a strong start. A complete recovery from each of the major extinctions required tens of millions of years. ...These figures should give pause to anyone who believes that what Homo sapiens destroys, Nature will redeem. Maybe so, but not within an length of time that has meaning for contemporary humanity."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version