Global warming isn't our fault!

[nevada]

I don't know why most people think that humans are causing global warming. Earth's climate has been fluctuating for more than 4.5 billion years. So why do people have the conceit to think that humans can influence the planet’s atmosphere? Oh, but burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric CO2 which is in turn raising the planets temperature. Please! T-rex wasn’t driving around in a Hummer 150 million years ago and levels of atmospheric CO2 where significantly higher. Whats more, ancient man wasn’t participating in heavy industry 70,000-10,000 years ago when the last ice age occurred either. What I am getting at is that the planet changes and all we can do is adapt to that change.

Visit http://www.hugthis.net and see the CO2 science link for more information.

[Hayduke]

If we want to "adapt" in the evolutionary sense of the word, and simply live or die based on reproductive success in a landscape growing increasingly ill-suited to primate sustainance, then hey, nothing to see here. I don't recommend this if you want your species to continue, of course, because with spreading desertification and decreasing agricultural potential, the simple evolutionary prospects look a lot better for rats and cockroaches than humans, if trends continue.

But you don't strike me as a "let evolution do its thing" kind of guy.

If we want to "adapt" in the sense of using logic to overcome possible environmental shortcomings, then we have to look at environmental problems logically. Since a large number of respected scientists suggest that, "yes, climatic fluctuation occurs naturally, but we have data that suggests humanity in its current enterprise is adding to the problem, bigtime," then logically, even the harshest skeptic should acknowledge this as a possibility. To whatever degree this is possible, should we not then work to minimize those things contributing to the current climate shift, when by all accounts, the current trend of the climate will ultimately render our planet uninhabitable by anywhere near the number of people inhabiting it today, if we do nothing?

Adaptation-wise, we have four possibilities, as I see it:

1) We accept the climatic shift as inevitable, ignore the problem, and let nature weed us out if we become unfit for the new environment. (Odds that we'll accept nature's decision quiety in this scenario: 0%. Odds that at least huge number of us would die off if we do: near 100%. End result: doom.)

2) We accept the climatic shift as inevitable, and attempt to address the problem through something like space colonization, or living in domes under the sea where we thrive on kelp farming, or some technological miracle that allows us to ignore the resource crunches inevitable when the environment becomes hostile. (Odds that we'd fight nature in this scenario: near 100%. Odds that we'd succeed in achieving any of these far-flung pipe dreams before we were largely wiped out by our own ignorance: near 0%. End result: doom.)

3) We decide that man just might be contributing to the devastation of the environment and whole ecosystems through climatic change-inducing policy, but say screw it and hope economics bails us out, and that sheer demand will somehow make bounty spring from dessicated Earth, or spur science on to discoveries that even scientists can't even fathom yet. (Odds that we actually take this path: looking good. Odds that econ bails us out: current levels of technology and rapidly rising environmental crises from all directions say looking bad. End result: likely doom, as far as I can tell, but at least we go down riding the horse that brought us here.)

4) We decide that man just might be contributing to the devastation of the environment and whole ecosystems through climatic change-inducing policy. But this time, we look at what scientists on both sides are saying, and at least say, "Hey, even if it's only 50/50 that this is our fault, every other scenario pretty much ####s us, so we might as well give living more in tune with nature a shot." (Odds that we take this path: looking slim, at least for now. Odds that eliminating the things that scientific opinion tells us are maybe a 50/50 likelihood of being the biggest contributing factor of environmental degradation would actually fix the environment: obviously, 50% or so. End result: hope.)


Seems to me, the rational choice is #4, if you're hoping humanity thrives into the future. Just accepting the shifting climate as purely natural is fine, but it doesn't seem like it gives us much of a shot.

Personally, I'm hoping for #1, with a much smaller number of humans entering an uncertain future properly penitent towards nature, and determined to live in a sustainable way from there forward. I'm expecting some combo of #2 and #3, as nobody will come to a consensus and nobody will want to give up their gravy train till it's way too late. And while I don't think #4 is very likely given the prevalent short-sightedness of humanity, I would at least enjoy watching the drama unfold if we went that way.

[Richard]

Hayduke is right. Of course the climate varies naturally, no-one would dispute that. It's the rate of change that's the problem. For example, change that would have taken 1,000 years to occur naturally may now occur in 50-100 years because humans are speeding up the natural climatic variations. This gives us a lot less time to adapt to the changes, potentially leading to hardships for a great many people.

Personally I feel that there is very little that can be done about it. Human nature being what it is, not enough people will want to do anything about it until it's too late anyway. So we're pretty much along for the ride. If we're lucky, things won't turn out so bad and we'll mostly be alright. If we're unlucky then time to head for the bunkers and every man for himself!

[MassDebation.com]

Yeah, but Robster, this reasoning assumes that reaction rates are supposed to and would otherwise be static if it wasn't for humans.

For the rate of change to be static, the overall dynamics would have to remain the same. The chances of this are remote in any uncontrolled reaction, so it's much more likely that the rates of change will fluctuate too over time, with or without us.

Yes, we do change the dynamics, but I think when you compare our emissions with the volume of our atmosphere, we're collectively like an ant who's continually farting in your house. Certainly your house's air condition is ever-changing, but I suspect that your experience of this would be more focussed on stronger influences - doubt you'll ever get to suffocate from the ant's fart.

I'm all for keeping our planet tidy, and becoming more efficient with our resources. But I do agree with the poster when he says we are conceited in thinking we're the big cause of just about everything!
Would you at least agree with me that the media has not got a reputation of NOT inflating stories?

[Richard]

The media is always sensationalist. I think everyone knows that.

[blackfoxtrade]

Even if humans aren't responsible for climate change, we still need to stop polluting the planet we are living on. CO2 contributes to climate change but we are also polluting our fresh water reserves every day, we are still polluting the air we breathe (which leads to numerous diseases, including cancer), we are still cutting down rainforests like there is no tomorrow and with that we are killing species, etc. But we still need to stop polluting irrespective of who is guilty for climate change. Why am I saing that? Because otherwise some people might think that if we are innocent regarding climate change then we might even be innocent for other things. (that's the way a "simple minded, media driven" person thinks)

[Zoltan Paul Jambor]

Originally Posted by blackfoxtrade

Even if humans aren't responsible for climate change, we still need to stop polluting the planet we are living on. CO2 contributes to climate change but we are also polluting our fresh water reserves every day, we are still polluting the air we breathe (which leads to numerous diseases, including cancer), we are still cutting down rainforests like there is no tomorrow and with that we are killing species, etc. But we still need to stop polluting irrespective of who is guilty for climate change. Why am I saing that? Because otherwise some people might think that if we are innocent regarding climate change then we might even be innocent for other things. (that's the way a "simple minded, media driven" person thinks)

Very well stated. The media does have the power to rid people of their guilt even though their actions say they are guilty. That is exaxtly what's happening in the FREE country of the USA. The freedom of the press to distort the truth. We must put the minds of the worst polluters of the world at ease. That is what the media does best. It must continue the comforting of the republic, or better stated; the Republicans. Isn't it great to live in a free country?

Too bad most Americans aren't even aware of the fact that global warming effects their life every day. The heat waves, the hurricanes, the droughts, the floods, soil erosion, permafrost melting, glacier melting and and out of control temperatures are all made worse by global warming. Someone please tell them they are living in a lie fabricated by the media.


ZPJ