In response to all the global warming threads, who thinks its a myth, or true?

[star]

Originally Posted by Sewie

True. And I'll bet the dinosaurs believed they would always roam the planet. One of the things that gets me in the "global warming" debate is the arrogant belief that the human species (or any species for that matter) is meant to inhabit this planet for all eternity. And the even more arrogant belief that we actually have any control over that.

I'm not sure what your argument here is, if that is even your position. If you're saying that we'll go extinct anyway so why bother, I can agree w/ you on the first part. If nothing else kills us, the lack of our sun will when it nears the end of it's life span (if we're still around then, which is doubtable).

Regarding our arrogance - that's what rules humanity. We, since our existence, believe we can control, amend, harness, dictate nature's directive and in the end it costs us billions and billions of dollars and typically we end up having to try to right our wrongs and put nature back as it was before our interference. Damming of water, and the redirection of water, is a great example of this. These acts kill off our wetlands that help to cease flooding of our homes and act as buffers against severe weather. How much money are we pumping into the Everglades because of the destruction we've caused there? Arrogance is what got us into this mess. Ceasing to mess up our atmosphere would indicate to me that we've become more humbled in our approach - not more arrogant. That's exactly why I'm sure we'll continue to conduct ourselves as we've always done, with arrogance. It seems to be more embedded in our nature.

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

[3Hummer]

bump

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner...

[star]

Originally Posted by Hummer Aficionado_VT

I think someone posted on here before about this situation and they blamed it on beef cattle in the rainforest or something like that...

I ate steak for dinner...

Brazil has currently lost 38% of it's rainforest for the purposes of cattle grazing. You wouldn't think this to be funny if you knew the dynamic of this systems and how they benefit us and how we actually require that they remain in tact for a multitude of reasons. A quarter of our medicines are derived from plants that reside in rainforests and only something like 1% of these plants have been tested for such purposes. Also, rainforests act to regulate weather patterns. They help to prohibit drought, desertification and act as carbon sinks.

The cattle industry is one of the most destructive forms of our consumption as the raising of beef clears an abundance of land (as you can see in the above paragraph). Cattle raising also requires an immense amount of water irrigation (2,500 gallons of water to raise 1 pound of meat). How we manage this industry is not very sustainable. Here's a link.

http://www.duke.edu/web/planv/realities.html

For Ken's benefit, I can see why I may be considered a troll but I voted for my Republican Congressman twice. One doesn't have to be a liberal to understand the necessity of our environment and how it relates to the requirements of our very existence.

[KenP]

I had steak last night.

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

Originally Posted by KenP

I had steak last night.

Hellz yeah brotha!

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

Originally Posted by star

You wouldn't think this to be funny if you knew the dynamic of this systems and how they benefit us and how we actually require that they remain in tact for a multitude of reasons.

I think its funny that you waste time trolling Hummer forums!

I understand the medicine aspect of the rainforest and such, but don't blame global warming on beef cattle, Hummers, etc.

[KenP]

Haha! Star is a liberally educated enviro-troll.

I'll read his/her posts because they're not inflaming, just wrong.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Climate change will correct part of the problem if we choose not to. It will kill many people with severe weather, diseases that migrate due to the warmer climate (west nile is here to stay and others will follow), famine. The rest of us will just have to contend with a collapsing agricultural scenario as we chose not to conserve our oil. 6 Billion people doesn't really create a sustainable picture. We're already in trouble with the viability of our seafood food source.

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

[KenP]

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by KenP

Thanks Marine. Who'd have thought the environment goes through cycles? Amazing stuff. Really, just amazing.

I hope star reads that.

Now I want to talk about cows more.

How much methane to they put out each year?

If I recall, they produce a lot of methane in Scandanavia. Not sure why there specifically. Oh wait, that's mooses: http://www.elcovaforums.com/forums/s...401#post424401

[star]

Originally Posted by MarineHawk

Forgive me, but your opinions sound kind of arrogant themselves, insofar as they are stated in absolutes without being backed up by scientific evidence. Real science is based on sound theories, not a vote. Thus, while many scientists have jumped on the manmade global warming bandwagon, that does not tell us what the state of real science is. Many of them rely on computer models predicting substantial increases in global temperatures in the next fifty years. However, when actual known data from the past 250 years is plugged into these formulas, they do not correlate with what happened next at all--predicting increases when temperatures actually dropped and vice versa. Insect remains from thousands of years ago recently were found in parts of Greenland where temperatures are far too low for them to exist now. The climates of earth and Mars are apparently now warming slightly, just like they have done in cycles for, at least, millions of years. It comes from fluctuations in solar output. Not sure how we're going to impact that one.

As for West Nile, you can blame the enviro-whackos for leaving us defenseless: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60528,00.html

It was banned based on enviro-hysteria that was based on lefty politics instead of science. http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

If we don't change the manner and degree to which we use our resources, we will suffer consequences. You don't need to understand science for a realization of this. Water shortages and the impending collapse of our seafood supply are two examples that are already present. My position is that notwithstanding the cause of climate change, actions should be taken to halt the problems that are realized from the overuse of our resources.

We lay people can muse about whether or not the fact that the majority of climate scientists are correct as they try to enlighten us that humans are, in fact, contributing to a warming planet. It doesn't matter. Our consumption, along with the increasing consumption of developing countries, will not be sustainable. The results of this are already present.

And DDT. That's just bad. Enviro-whackos got this one right. This compound placed species on extinction watch and caused serious population declines in others. Most of these species were birds, which help clear our environment of these pesky insects. Is it more logical to retain healthy bird/bat populations to control these pests or advocate the use of a harmful compound? As any harmful compound is used, the pest species evolve increased resistance until the compound is nary effective and another toxic compound must be introduced to control the pest species. These compounds do not discriminate between dna profiles. What kills or harms one species, will kill or harm all. It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

[KenP]

Good grief, it's as if you read Counter Currents and other enviro sites, and are using snippets from it in your arguements.

[RubHer Yellow Ducky]

OK !

Is man adding to Global Warming, YES HE IS but in a small amount...we should control poisons more that leach back into our drinking water, that get into our food crops, both plant and animal, that go into the air we breathe because they effect us directly and sometimes very fast...that get into the seas from which we also farm and rely on for food products...

Our big worry should be the deletion of non-replaceable natural resourses. Try and find trees in Haiti, or fresh water in the desert (except of course in ISRAEL).

There has ALWAYS been one person more powerful then another, one city more powerful then another, one country more powerful then another. When controls for flourocarbons or mercury or arsinic are put forth then need to apply to all countries, not just first world nations (koyoto) ...

WE NEED to develop PRACTABLE Wind Power, Solar Power, Tidal Power, Hydrogen Cars, Greatly improve Nucular Power Plants, improve our ability to drill OUR OWN OIL SAFELY, find fertalizer thats are safer for our bodies.

We also need to save some areas from any human encrochment but in doing so we must also make areas for off roaders, for campers, for horseback riding etc...

We need to get back into space...With the population growing like it is NOW is the time to push for NEAR FUTURE development on habitable stations in space, for development on habitats on the moon. If we don't start now it will be just like our roads here...we build homes and after the roads are jammed from these new homeowners then we work on improving the road jams (STUPID)
When new housing development are offered the larger roads need to be a part of the development...

I can offer a major leadership role in this... JUST MAKE ME WORLD DICTATOR...

[deserth3]

ALL HAIL RYD, ALL HAIL RYD

Don't forget the bannanas

[KenP]

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

[SnakeH2]

Star is a global warmer lurker...

[KenP]

Originally Posted by KenP

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

That's a good question, Ken.

How about you, Star?

[Mr. I - Man]

Originally Posted by KenP

Anyone been to Schaumburg, IL? It's just outside Chicago.

Must be dirty up there.

Yuk.

Yeah its dirty if you hate suburban cookie cutter sprawl.

[MarineHawk]

Originally Posted by star

Blah, blah blah ... It's believed that 15% of human deaths were linked to DDT in the 60's.

If so, only by the most moronic of all enrviro-whakos. The absence of DDT now is (with a real basis) credited with the annual deaths of three million children per year worldwide due to malaria. http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/20...orses-ddt.html