NationStates Jolt Archive

Put things into perspective.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/978035.cms


As the death toll keeps rising, it seems certain that the tsunami on December 26 killed more than the 140,000 who died at Hiroshima. A search for culprits has begun, but is misdirected. The real culprit is nature.

Ecologists have created the myth that nature represents a harmonious equilibrium threatened by human excesses. In fact nature's apparent harmony is a short-term illusion between cataclysms. Bill Bryson's A Short

History of Nearly Everything reveals enough natural dangers to make man's survival so far seem a miracle.

Nature's vagaries have made extinct 99.99% of the 30 billion species created since life began. The Ordovician and Devonian extinctions wiped out 80-85% of all living species. The Permian extinction (245 million years ago) wiped out 95%. Humans have done their bit too. Estimates of man-made extinctions range from two per month to 600 per week. Yet, even the high figure pales besides nature's own extinctions. Humans have survived only by squeezing through a series of closing doors over millennia.....Article cont.

Put things into perspective.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/978035.cms
I heard about that while listening to Rusch Limbaugh; frankly, I already knew all of that, and I still support the Climate Change(that's my name for it, since Global Warming isn't accurate) theory. We're very minor, yes, but we're just enough to push it over the edge.

Thats what I keep telling everyone, but no one listens

Apparently the author does not understand the real ecological argument for global warming. The problem is that we do not know how much of it is human-influenced, since it is certainly happening. It may be nearly all anthropological, and it may be nearly all the natural cycle, we just don't have enough evidence yet. That is the problem, we know we're having an impact, we just don't know how big it is yet. What if it turns out to be mostly us, and that we will permanently create a nigh uninhabiatable Earth through our actions? What if there's nothing we can do to stop the natural progression of things, all that we could potentially do is slow it down a fraction? We just don't know, and more research needs to be put into that area. And we need to play it on the safe side, or we may regret it beyond our comprehension.

We're very minor, yes, but we're just enough to push it over the edge.
I agree with you in concept, but as I stated earlier, we do not know just how much of it is a human influence, and anyone who pretends otherwise is ignorant or fooling themselves.

why did i not care what was posted when i saw that i was from armed bookworms, then i read some one heard about it on rush limbaugh and was like "oh yeah, its because hes an extremist right winger nutcase"

why did i not care what was posted when i saw that i was from armed bookworms, then i read some one heard about it on rush limbaugh and was like "oh yeah, its because hes an extremist right winger nutcase"
Hey, look! Its the guy who thinks terrorists dont exist!

It's the 'little-more' theory......if lots is already being taken, nobody would miss just a 'little-more'.

Just because nature is doing its best to wipe out mankind, that doesn't mean that we should be helping it along. So what if nature produces 30 times more air pollutants then mankind.......why toss in our 3.333%. It might not save us from final extinction, but it might save mankind for a few more centuries or millenia.

Do I understand correctly that this argument is saying that past evidence of mass extinctions from climate changes actually REFUTES present worries of extictions from climate change?

...umm...Yeah.

The concept that nature is fickle so lets pollute as much as we want is very similar to saying we're all gonna die at some point so lets try to kill ourselves now and be done with it. I'm not a big supporter of suicide.

So what if nature produces 30 times more air pollutants then mankind.......why toss in our 3.333%.
Again, I agree completely. But humans produce far, far more pollutants than nature does. Pollutants are not what nature is doing for global warming, that is not it at all.

Apparently the author does not understand the real ecological argument for global warming. The problem is that we do not know how much of it is human-influenced, since it is certainly happening. It may be nearly all anthropological, and it may be nearly all the natural cycle, we just don't have enough evidence yet. That is the problem, we know we're having an impact, we just don't know how big it is yet. What if it turns out to be mostly us, and that we will permanently create a nigh uninhabiatable Earth through our actions? What if there's nothing we can do to stop the natural progression of things, all that we could potentially do is slow it down a fraction? We just don't know, and more research needs to be put into that area. And we need to play it on the safe side, or we may regret it beyond our comprehension.
By your logic for all we know is that if we severely cut back on our emissions we could very well cause the climate to snap into an ice age.

Apparently the author does not understand the real ecological argument for global warming. The problem is that we do not know how much of it is human-influenced, since it is certainly happening. It may be nearly all anthropological, and it may be nearly all the natural cycle, we just don't have enough evidence yet. That is the problem, we know we're having an impact, we just don't know how big it is yet. What if it turns out to be mostly us, and that we will permanently create a nigh uninhabiatable Earth through our actions? What if there's nothing we can do to stop the natural progression of things, all that we could potentially do is slow it down a fraction? We just don't know, and more research needs to be put into that area. And we need to play it on the safe side, or we may regret it beyond our comprehension.


I agree with you in concept, but as I stated earlier, we do not know just how much of it is a human influence, and anyone who pretends otherwise is ignorant or fooling themselves.

Agreed. I've never been exactly certain how to see our effectiveness; at times I thought we were all that was causing it; at other times, I thought we weren't doing anything at all. I'll settle for waiting for more research.

By your logic for all we know is that if we severely cut back on our emissions we could very well cause the climate to snap into an ice age.
Umm...nooo...

Hey, look! Its the guy who thinks terrorists dont exist!
hey look its a dipshit that has actually been here more than a week! looks like the mods havnt banned all the old right wing nutters afterall

do you really think that we are enough to put it over the edge?
it's like throwing a bucket into the ocean and then saying that that's what caused the flood.
Truth be told, there is no edge to throw it over. unless you want to ascribe it to chaos theory- but that takes away your power aswell.

the trouble with the global warming theory is that it remains inconsistant as a predictive element, but is invariably aplicable after the fact. You can say, "hey the winter this year is warmer/colder than usual, and that is a sign of global warming." but then someone asks, "Well, what will next year be like due to global warming?" and you've already stumped the theorist.

a theory that cannot be tested is just fun with speculation. it neither accounts for phoenomena, nor predicts them.

so. what would the world look like if global warming were not true? well, we'd still be coming out of the last ice age. the polar caps have been melting for the past ten thousand years. The english channel has been completely flooded.

and by the way, don't throw any more buckets of water in the ocean, 'cause i don't have flood insurance.

So the argument is, "It's okay if we pollute up the planet, because nature will probably kill us all in the end anyway?"

do you really think that we are enough to put it over the edge?
Do you really think that we aren't?

if it is chaos theory, then we can't do anything about it.

Ie. argument "we don't know how much we are causing, but we might destroy the world."
but that does mean that we could cause the catastrophe through any action or inaction. Not knowing means that we don't know how to fix it. We don't know how to play it safe.

Global warming (as in it gets warmer) has litterally been happening long before the industrial revolution. Hell, it's been happening since before the agricultural revolution. And, yes, before the existence of humanity.

There was a book published of research about the state of the environment. Much to the dismay of the environmentalists, the research showed that the evironment's condition has improved dramatically due to awareness, legal actions and regulations.

environmentalists immidiately campeigned to ban the book that said that things were actually working. odd, isn't it?

"Do you really think that we aren't?"

What edge?

really?

i don't see it.

Oh, and If the theory is as incomplete as it's staunchest defenders claim, how can we regulate something we know next to nothing about? Research is in order, but not conclusions. And conclusions based on predictable elements are what is required for regulation.

I am in favor of research. I even like many of the environmental controls in effect. I do not agree with the apocolyptic view that is portrayed time and again.

Just because nature does it too it doesn't make it any less wrong, or you any less of a murderer.

who did i kill?

I argee that we probably aren't causing that much harm, hopefully, but I'd rather try and avoid contributing at all. It just seems sensible to, just in case.

We do get through a lot of plants, though. And they're the things that give us oxygen. I like oxygen. It helps you breathe more easily.

And we also do wipe out other species on an alarmingly regular basis outselves. Since they're mostly beetles, it's probably no great loss most to the time, but it seems a bit selfish to just kill them out of pure carelessness.

hey look its a dipshit that has actually been here more than a week! looks like the mods havnt banned all the old right wing nutters afterall
Wow, SOMEBODY has agression problems, but I think this is rather the wrong place to start a flame war ;)
Maybe you should make a thread where you flame me, Im sure that would go over well.
Im not going to post about this in this topic anymore, its rather disrespectful to the thread author.

Umm...nooo...
Actually considering it might set up something like a nasty harmonic with the earth's climate, yes.

you do realise that no one is trying to pin the tsunami on global warming.

you also realise that most of the mass extinctions were brought on by catastrophes such as comets hitting the earth, right?

By your logic for all we know is that if we severely cut back on our emissions we could very well cause the climate to snap into an ice age.
what?

please try to refrain from pulling things out of your ass.