Do you believe in man-made global warming?

[280Z Turbo]

This isn't about pollution, buckshot.  I'm all about stopping pollution.  Cool.  Good.  Let's stop throwing trash into piles and killing fish.

Global warming...?

People used to think that the earth was so big that nothing we could do could really pollute it. I'm pointing out that this isn't true.

[JWC]

Global warming isn't about "saving" the earth.  The earth will survive global warming (or climate change) and so will the wildlife that inhabits it, including humans.  It is about saving our way of life.  That is the scam of global warming that no one wants to admit. 

[Rupert]

That's true. The problem is that a lot of the places that will be most negatively affected have not contributed nearly as much as the West or China. It's about us rich people imposing damaging and negative consequences on poorer nations. If our pollution only affected us, it would be a much smaller problem. Additionally, it's not good for extinction to occur unnaturally, which is what happens when us humans change the ecosystem.

But, of course, in a few million years, there will probably not be any more humans, and new plants and animals will have evolved in a natural way.

[Tave]

As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.

[JWC]

That's true. The problem is that a lot of the places that will be most negatively affected have not contributed nearly as much as the West or China. It's about us rich people imposing damaging and negative consequences on poorer nations. If our pollution only affected us, it would be a much smaller problem. Additionally, it's not good for extinction to occur unnaturally, which is what happens when us humans change the ecosystem.

But, of course, in a few million years, there will probably not be any more humans, and new plants and animals will have evolved in a natural way.

Would a volcano be unnatural?  How about a asteroid?

[Rupert]

Would a volcano be unnatural?  How about a asteroid?

Nope. Fine line, sure.

[Rupert]

As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.

That's political, so I don't pay attention to it.

[Onslaught]

Global warming isn't about "saving" the earth.  The earth will survive global warming (or climate change) and so will the wildlife that inhabits it, including humans.  It is about saving our way of life.  That is the scam of global warming that no one wants to admit. 

Not sure all the wildlife will survive.

[JWC]

Not sure all the wildlife will survive.

I wouldn't expect all wildlife is going to survive anyway.  The loss of the DoDo bird wasn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things.   We as humans tend to place a high priority on saving every species from extinction, but it isn't possible, and probably isn't worth the battle in most cases.

History Channel ran a program this past summer about life without humans.  We're not needed. Or are we?  We seem to think that the survival of the loggerhead turtle is imperative to maintaining a balance in nature, but we discount our own contributions.  Animals will destroy their habitat to the point of their own extinction.  Then, the habitat will recover and different animals return. 

This happens even when humans step in to correct a problem humans started...which is something we need to keep in mind in regards to global warming.  I'm reminded of a small island off of Antarctica, where humans introduced rabbits for food.  When the rabbit population got out of hand, they introduced cats to control the rabbit population.  When the rabbit population died off, the cats began eating the native birds.  To correct this, scientists removed the cats.  With the cats gone, the rabbit population got out of control again.  Now the vegetation is being destroyed by the rabbits, which is harming the habitat of the other wildlife.  The lesson is, even when man causes the problem, his solutions usually do more damage than if they had left it alone. 

Throughout Al Gore's movie, the main fear he tried to instill was how global warming would affect us.   You can defend it by saying that he had to put it on a level that would jolt humans into doing the right thing, but the long and short of it is, it still comes down to people worried about their own survival and way of life.

[GoCougs]

As I understand it, carbon quotas are more harmfull to poor nations than they are to us.

Sure. Do GWists honestly believe that UN pimping will actually save Africa, and the extremely poor parts of South American and SE Asia? Poor countries' survival depends on cheap sources of energy. It's simply not going to happen any other way.

GW is the very worst of self-loathing; haters want the US bucked down for being the best, to "spread the wealth around" and otherwise atone for past sins (colonialism, imperialism, and winning wars).

[Rupert]

I wouldn't expect all wildlife is going to survive anyway.  The loss of the DoDo bird wasn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things.   We as humans tend to place a high priority on saving every species from extinction, but it isn't possible, and probably isn't worth the battle in most cases.

History Channel ran a program this past summer about life without humans.  We're not needed. Or are we?  We seem to think that the survival of the loggerhead turtle is imperative to maintaining a balance in nature, but we discount our own contributions.  Animals will destroy their habitat to the point of their own extinction.  Then, the habitat will recover and different animals return. 

This happens even when humans step in to correct a problem humans started...which is something we need to keep in mind in regards to global warming.  I'm reminded of a small island off of Antarctica, where humans introduced rabbits for food.  When the rabbit population got out of hand, they introduced cats to control the rabbit population.  When the rabbit population died off, the cats began eating the native birds.  To correct this, scientists removed the cats.  With the cats gone, the rabbit population got out of control again.  Now the vegetation is being destroyed by the rabbits, which is harming the habitat of the other wildlife.  The lesson is, even when man causes the problem, his solutions usually do more damage than if they had left it alone. 

Throughout Al Gore's movie, the main fear he tried to instill was how global warming would affect us.   You can defend it by saying that he had to put it on a level that would jolt humans into doing the right thing, but the long and short of it is, it still comes down to people worried about their own survival and way of life.

The lesson is, don't fuck with nature to begin with!

[Tave]

That is emphatically not the lesson.

[Rupert]

In a greatly generalized sense, it is. If not that, what?

(I was referring to the third paragraph of JWC's post, BTW).

[FoMoJo]

Would a volcano be unnatural?  How about a asteroid?

I believe that even humans are a part of nature so anything they do can be determined as natural.  However, as we do, pretty much, have the wherewithall to destroy the planet, it's in our self interest not to do so.

As for volcanos, the effect is, almost, like what humans do in slow motion; taking the industrial age as a starting point.

Asteroids will likely be the cause of our demise; unless we have time to spread to other parts of the universe before that inevitable event occurs.

[Tave]

If not that, what?

Simply by existing, humans are going to "fuck with" nature. We have to ask ourselves whether protecting nature from a certain fuck up is worth our time, nay even possible.

[Rupert]

Granted. Still, there are things we can do to fuck with nature less, like not introduce non-native and invasive species to little islands.

[Tave]

Granted. Still, there are things we can do to fuck with nature less, like not introduce non-native and invasive species to little islands.

Why should we care?

European exploration and colonization managed to irrevocably alter the biosphere of the entire continent of North America. Sagegrass, cattle, horses: these had much larger consequences than some rabbits on an island no one cares about.

Now, I think preservation and conservation are commendable, and in lot of cases worthwhile, goals, but we can't become obsessed with it to the point that we cause real harm to ourselves and other people. I think sometimes the environmental movement refuses to face that reality.

[hounddog]

No.  I believe Carl Sagan is wholy responsible for this junk science, and the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon the world.

[Eye of the Tiger]

No.  I believe Carl Sagan is wholy responsible for this junk science, and the biggest lie ever perpetrated upon the world.

LOL yeah Carl Sagan is such a retard. 
Maybe you should blame the politicians who portray scientific theories as facts in order to promote their social agendas.

[hounddog]

Well, them as well.  But, it was the "scientific" community who nudged the far left toward believing this great lie.

[GoCougs]

Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.

And yes, people are more important than polar bears.

[2o6]

Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.

And yes, people are more important than polar bears.

But the Bearz is in our coke commercialz! 

[GoCougs]

But the Bearz is in our coke commercialz! 

Oh, I'm sure the only thing that tastes better than polar bear is polar bear raised on sweet, sticky Coca Cola!

[2o6]

It gives it a nice flavor. Not as overpowering as teriyaki.

[Onslaught]

Look no further than the publication Scientific American for the leftist political infiltration of scientific academia.

And yes, people are more important than polar bears.

I don't know. I don't think people are all that important.

[Rupert]

The idea that people are more important than the rest of nature is entirely at odds with the idea that people and the things we do are natural.

[JWC]

The idea that people are more important than the rest of nature is entirely at odds with the idea that people and the things we do are natural.

We must be more important than nature.  We spend millions trying to shore up eroding beaches so million dollar homes will not crash into the ocean.  We spend millions per year trying to figure out how the stop an asteroid hit, should the need arise.  We are spending millions per year trying to figure out how to control weather.

[Rupert]

Then we are not natural.

[Eye of the Tiger]

We must be more important than nature.  We spend millions trying to shore up eroding beaches so million dollar homes will not crash into the ocean.  We spend millions per year trying to figure out how the stop an asteroid hit, should the need arise.  We are spending millions per year trying to figure out how to control weather.

Do you know how many trillions of ant bucks the ants spend building nests, ant hills, underground waste chambers, and otherwise defacing the planet? No, I didn't think so.

[GoCougs]

I don't know. I don't think people are all that important.

Perhaps not, but certainly more so than ants, polar bears or pseudo naturalist religion.