Thread: Earth has suffered irreversible damage

Originally Posted by partofme

The whole problem with studies about things such as global warming is that there are actually experts who do not agree with the scenario that you here on television about our future demise due to warming caused by humans. Who is to be believed?

Absolutely correct! I seem to remember reading a recent article where a study, by scientists at MIT, compared global warming predictions to the religious extremists that predict the second coming of Christ.

This is the latest report on Climate change:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4395817.stm

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/

http://www.noaa.gov/

Whether you agree or not that humans are having an impact on our world, to deny it totally is just pathetic and unjustifiable.

I hope this latest report helps in formulating more debate, because there are obviously alot of people who need convincing.

I dont think there is a question whether the humans influence the environment. And it also seems that lately the influence has mostly been destructive. Of course as some pointed out, the warming might also be partly (even mostly) due to other than human activities, but then again it be mostly caused human activities. The thing is that even though it is quite certain that human existence on earth will at some point end (whether the sun will stop burning or a huge asteroid will kill everybody or nuclear war would do the job I dont know), I dont see the point of making a run for it and accelerating the earths warming and bringing the end nearer. Atleast I would like my grandchildren to have a place to live in. If I can help it by saving earths resources now and not overburdening it, Im happy to do that.

So yeah, the earth will go and humans might self-destruct, but do we have to hurry with it?

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Have you ever noticed that the enviro-scientists always pick a date for their doom and gloom predicitons beyond their own reasonable life expectancy?

That way, when their predicitons of disaster turn out to be nonsense (remember the 1970's? Ice Age coming soon?), they'll be dead and won't have to be accountable for their mistakes.

Matt

The comparison is of course ridiculous, but keep on dreaming that the funride won't stop

Originally Posted by jotathought

Absolutely correct! I seem to remember reading a recent article where a study, by scientists at MIT, compared global warming predictions to the religious extremists that predict the second coming of Christ.

Yes of course, this is all a conspiracy made up by 80% of the scientists on earth who are qualified to make an assessment of the environmental problems - wake up and start becoming a responsible world citizen

Originally Posted by EuroKnight

The comparison is of course ridiculous, but keep on dreaming that the funride won't stop

I don't think MattLarson's comaprison is ridiculous. I think those predictions can't possibly be as accurate as they want us to believe. And WHY do we believe it so quickly when, with all the modern technology, they can't even predict the weather with certainty. I mean think about it. With all the tools availale and as close to us as something as simple as our weather is, they still can't hit it much of the time. So now scientists want us to believe they can predict with accuracy the nature and effects of global warming? Or than man is responsible for changes that have been going on in the universe since long before man was even around.

Taking a way, way back view, is it not hubris to think that we have the ability to "ruin" or "destroy" the entire frigging planet?

Matt

Originally Posted by Chiquita

I don't think MattLarson's comaprison is ridiculous. I think those predictions can't possibly be as accurate as they want us to believe. And WHY do we believe it so quickly when, with all the modern technology, they can't even predict the weather with certainty. I mean think about it. With all the tools availale and as close to us as something as simple as our weather is, they still can't hit it much of the time. So now scientists want us to believe they can predict with accuracy the nature and effects of global warming? Or than man is responsible for changes that have been going on in the universe since long before man was even around.

Weather patterns are not simple, the world is not simple. This is why we humans need to readdress our balance with the eco system that we are a part of. Those that believe we should just keep on expanding and polluting are ignorant. If you have any respect for mother nature, you would want to be part of it, not destroy it. Falling fish stocks, deforestation, industrial pollution, constant economic and social expansionism, humans ever encrouching on virgin earth, we are destructive beyond reason and ignorant of the consequences of our actions. Capitalism is a virus of the mind and of society, the disillusioned idea that we must keep expanding at an ever increasing rate.........for what.......the right to go to McDonalds for a shitty burger? Those flashy silly trainers which have a logo on them, so then cost twice as much? Freud was right about consumerism, he saw how it would turn out. Yes, there has to be consumerism to a certain degree, but we never realise when it has become unhealthy and needs booting into touch.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Taking a way, way back view, is it not hubris to think that we have the ability to "ruin" or "destroy" the entire frigging planet?

Matt

Not hubris but fact in my opinion.

Originally Posted by partofme

The whole problem with studies about things such as global warming is that there are actually experts who do not agree with the scenario that you here on television about our future demise due to warming caused by humans. Who is to be believed?

It amazes me that almost every environmental thread here on USPOL either starts out as, or devolves into, a discussion about GLOBAL WARMING - as if that is the only environmental problem there is. Wether global warming is real or not, caused by humans or not, etc, is all debateable. Other aspects of the environment are not.

From the article:

The consequences of humans' activities are severe and include: new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of "dead zones" along the coasts, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate, according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report.

Can we at least talk about applying the brakes a little bit on human's destruction of the planet? Discussions on the environment need not only be about Global Warming, which always quickly turns into a "well, I don't believe those scientists" type of debate.

Can we all agree that pollution, in general, is a bad thing? As in, I'd rather not be breathing in or drinking it? Can we all agree that it's a bad thing to clear-cut forests? Farming trees is OK, decimating a forest is not. Offshore fishing is OK, and necessary, but dragging heavy nets along the ocean floor and destroying the fish's environment (and ruining any chance of catching fish there in the future) is a bad idea.

Can we put aside the Global Warming debate for once, and talk about other aspects of the environment?