Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Your second sentence is one I see repeatedly since it is the only possible raison d'etre Big Oil can come up with to make the claim that someone is getting rich off of "The Human Caused Climate Change Hoax" since they are getting rich off of denying it (talk about Poles flipping!) and History shows Status Quo is a powerful force, likely to win out. The hubris of deny-ers amazes me since it isn't as if one requires higher Math or expensive equipment to verify it is not a Hoax. There are actually people ready to trust that NASA/ESA recently discovered a 20km lake of unfrozen water roughly a kilometer under the surface of Mars' South Pole but question NASA/ESA and 55 other institutions and individuals recorded measurements, photos, and films documenting the change and Humanity's role in it right here on Earth!. I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your 3rd and last sentence since I don't find it comical at all but rather disgusting and terribly tragic. How many ways? I suppose until a poll like this one has zero deniers of the all too obvious facts and nobody is going to be smug about having come to that conclusion early since the consequences, all of them, are likely beyond our imagination Bad. This is a case where I yearn to be wrong, but I likely am not. At this point all we can hope for regarding the future, if there is to be one, for Humanity that "Bad" will be a struggle that ultimately results in Growth and Maturity required to "reach the Stars". |
Quote:
i should've clarified: in my opinion, doubting humanity's influence on global warming is akin to believing in Intelligent Design. there. Quote:
be sure to scroll down to the end, otherwise you won't get it. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's not about me or even yourself being "satisfied", we can be satisfied all we want - that doesn't change anything. It doesn't stop climate change, but yes, that would be a far more accurate description in my view. Quote:
Quote:
My point is that it cannot be "man-made" if it's been happening since before we graced the poor Earth. |
This week's New Scientist has several articles on global warming, including a rather ominous one about changing ocean currents.
|
I'll throw some stuff in here too.
Think of the average acreage of farmland that is farmed using modern practices.... They pump anhydrous ammonia directly into the ground. This stuff is deadly, not only to humans but also the microbiology, who are necessary for healthy soil. Since the soil is dead, they need to constantly fertilize their fields. Who cares that most fertilizers are deadly to soil life. There is no soil life anyways:D Time to plant. They buy the latest Max, Advantage Plus, Highest yield, whatever, whatever, genetically modified herbicide tolerant seeds. These seed and the plants are toxic to insects, including beneficial ones like bees. Later, nature's bare soil response team(weeds) kicks in to protect the soil from erosion and moisture loss. This is of course very undesirable. Break out the herbicide. The killer does its job and continues to kill the soil. Not to mention the next rain will carry it into the water supply. Hmm aquatic life is dying!?? But How??? After a successful harvest, the field is once more bare for over winter, except for a few herbicide resistant weeds. Fields with this treatment, develop soil compaction. Which means it can no longer hold water like it should. When it rains there is HUGE amounts of runoff, When the sun shines its hard as a rock. In the spring it's one sloppy mess. Drainage tile to the rescue. Now the water can run off even faster and the weed killer reaches your water supply so much quicker. So how would this affect the climate? Think about it...How many acres are farm this way? They contribute next to nothing the environment, hold very little water. Hence drought and flooding is a common side effect. Not to mention the chemicals involved. Modern Farming is only a small factor in so called climate change, but don't underestimate it. :twocents: |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Often times the first sign of tyranny (in any form) is the absence of and/or refusal to allow opposing views. Notice how the for "man made climate change" group, cannot allow/permit an opposing/differing view, its either man made or its wrong, its this groups way or no way. That's not science its tyranny.
Ref: Tyranny of the mind https://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...-god-quotation Tyranny of the Majority https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculu...ranny-majority Tyranny of Science https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...nny-of-science |
It's really cause and effect in many ways.
The cause: is a natural process that would have happened regardless of our presence on this Earth or not; that is being accelerated (but not caused) by us humans. The effect: wilder weather, more destructive storms, hotter and colder temperatures, etc If it were not for our "contribution", the same would have taken many, many more years/decades/etc to happen instead. And it therefore cannot be "man-made" if it's fundamentally a "natural process". While I agree that first of all: we all have a "stake" in it. And yes, we should try and limit the effects of climate change. But to be realistic, we can only try and slow it down - we still can't actually stop it from happening. I really don't understand this left/right bullsh*t. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
You suggest that the Earth would have naturally reached the point we are at now, much later. I'm wondering if that's true? It's my understanding that before the industrial revolution Co2 was relatively static relative to afterwards. |
Quote:
The Science is clear. It would be far more comfortable if the data read differently but unfortunately it does not, firstly whether humanity is a part of the cause or not, then secondarily if it is , then can it also reverse that effect. While Myk267 makes a valid point regarding what trends did actually exist before the Industrial Revolution which may lead to a firmer reduction of any gap that may exist between "caused" or "affected and accelerated", I care not about the distinction. If I'm a passenger in a car that is being driven dangerously fast given weather conditions because it is raining cats and dogs, I don't care about any argumentative distinction between what will cause the likely upcoming accident, the rain or the car's velocity. I just want the driver to ease off the gas |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:49 PM. |