The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[Andrew Green]

The "Why" is definately important, as if we don't know why something is happening it is hard to know how to stop it. It just shouldn't be about blame, if it was humans, it was all of us, we're all guilty, but now it's time to fix it, or at least try to.

 

[Flying Crane]

I agree, with you, and there in lyes my stance and frusteration with the issue.

People are too focused on 'why,' and to me that is ridicules. I wouldn't ask "why" if I was defending myself from an attacker, for example. The why isn't important when a problem is occuring; "How will it effect us" and "how do we fix it" and "what do we do" should be the real discussion. But instead, we are left with various opinions on whether or not it is our fault.

Seems nutty to me...

I see your point, but I think it's very important to recognize what is causing it because any solution to the problem lies with the cause. There is vast scientific evidence indicating that human activity is greatly contributing to this phenomenon, even if it is not the sole cause. The activity that is contributing to it must be changed, or it will continue to escalate, faster and faster.

The burning of fossil fuels, for example, is a huge contributor to the pollution that is intimately tied to global warming. We desperately need alternative, renewable fuel sources so that we can eliminate, or at least drastically reduce these kinds of emissions. This is where human behavior needs to be changed quickly and drastically, if we want any chance of fixing the problem before huge damage is done to the globe. It is entirely possible that global warming could alter the globe so drastically that vast regions become uninhabitable. The problem is, those regions are currently inhabited. Millions of people could die in a very very short period of time, as food and water sources are eliminated, disease begins to spread as sanitation issues build, and the very land itself becomes hostile to human and other animal and plant presence.

This is a rather extreme vision of what may come, but I think it's important to look at the worse case scenario because it really could happen and we need to recognize how bad it might become. I've seen several times where the scientists have revised their predictions of how quickly this may happen, because actual observations of the progression of these problems have manifest much more quickly than initially thought possible. Not long ago the prediction was that this may be a problem for our grandchildren. Now, many scientists believe we will see many of these effects in our own lifetimes.

 

[Ray]

The burning of fossil fuels, for example, is a huge contributor to the pollution that is intimately tied to global warming. We desperately need alternative, renewable fuel sources so that we can eliminate, or at least drastically reduce these kinds of emissions. This is where human behavior needs to be changed quickly and drastically, if we want any chance of fixing the problem before huge damage is done to the globe. It is entirely possible that global warming could alter the globe so drastically that vast regions become uninhabitable.

I have come to the conclusion that we need to reduce the population of the earth to 2 billion max, through attrition.

 

[michaeledward]

The hydrocarbons in the Earth's crust took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate into the petroleum, coal, and natural gas that we have used for the past one hundred and fifty years to power our industrial engine. All of those hydrocarbons will be consumed in the next two centuries by man. Just thinking about that causes me to be filled with wonder, awe and sadness.

The hydrocarbon creation to consumption time line.

Alex, What is 1,000,000,000 years to 400 years?


I think that my mother used to teach me to share, and not be selfish. One can't help but wonder what Mother Nature thinks . . .

 

[Cruentus]

Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.

 

[michaeledward]

Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.

It seems to me that one who uses language such as

"self-hating the human race'
​

and

"conversation ... is totally unproductive"
​

might be painting a self-portrait.

I wonder how the word 'hate', and all the adjectives it receives, gained such prominence. It seems to me that is an especially unhelpful word in gaining understanding. It appears to have become a shorthand antonym for patriot; either you are a patriot, or you hate. You follow official doctrine, or you hate. You are a believer or you hate.

Personally, I think there is a hell of a lot less hate in the world than we hear about every day.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well, I guess what I mean to say when I say 'why,' is 'who's fault.' You have one camp whoeing and self hating the human race for our parisitic behavior, and the other trying to pretend that we can somehow do whatever we want and it will have little consequence. The conversation, on a social and scientific level, is totally unproductive. Again, the real question is can/do we do about it.

I think we agree here

It really does not matter whose fault it is, it is here. We can argue, point fingers and deny but it changes nothing and accomplishes nothing as well.

TO be honest I really don't care if we can to cannot prove that the sole cause is mans impact on the planet or not. I do however care about how can we fix it, if in fact we can?

It would seem to me that no matter what the cause, if we can fix it we should try and that IS our responsibility, since I seriously doubt the cows will do anything about it if in fact it was ever proven it was their fault as was once metioned by someone a few years back.

What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all?

 

[Big Don]

What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all?

What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?

 

[Andrew Green]

What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?

Would you prefer to try, or just ignore major problems and hope they go away?

 

[Xue Sheng]

What makes you think mankind has the ability to do anything about it?

I did not say mankind could do anything about it; it may be too late or simply not possible. What I said was as follows

I do however care about how can we fix it, if in fact we can?

and

What other species on the planet has the ability to do something about it if in fact it is not already to late or if anything can be done at all?"

But you must admit, humans are more likely capable of doing something about than cows or just about any other species on the planet, that is, if something can be done.

If you want to sit back do nothing and let it go, look for something to blame or vindication so be it that is your choice, as I said just avoid purchasing land in low lying areas.

 

[Ray]

But you must admit, humans are more likely capable of doing something about than cows or just about any other species on the planet, that is, if something can be done.

Aren't other species more regulated by their environment than humans?

In a land without humans, would a certain number of quadraped mammals like deer be running about and their numbers controlled by the available resources (increasing the population) and the quantity of predators (decreasing the population). The predators would likewise be controlled by the quantity of deer, etc.

We seem to be good at changing our surroundings to reap the short term benefit, but not so good at looking at the long term.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Aren't other species more regulated by their environment than humans?

Actually other species are more regulated by humans if for no other reason encroachment and interference. Other species tend to be fairly adaptable to environmental changes if the changes are slow. Not so good if the changes are fast like what appears to be happening now. We don't do so well at it either, just better than some, not as well as others. But then it depends on the speed and severity of the change

In a land without humans, would a certain number of quadraped mammals like deer be running about and their numbers controlled by the available resources (increasing the population) and the quantity of predators (decreasing the population). The predators would likewise be controlled by the quantity of deer, etc.

We seem to be good at changing our surroundings to reap the short term benefit, but not so good at looking at the long term.

True.

But deer are just no damn good at scientific research and things like chemistry; they have a hell of a time holding test tubes with their hooves

 

[Shotochem]

Evolution.

We are at the top of the food chain at the moment. We evolved to the level of being able to change our enviornment to suit us.

When we can no longer do so, we will be replaced.

Don't know about everyone else, but I like it on top. No matter what the cause or our ability to fix it, we should still conserve our resources as much as we can.

If even for the selfish reason of them lasting longer, which is by the, way another example of using the enviornment for the advancement and propagation of our species.

Its hardwired into us and every creature ...... survival the only difference is that we have a greater chance that most others.

-Marc-

 

[Lisa]

Most excellent thread this is.

Many good arguments brought forth.

Me, I look at it this way.

The world is changing and while the jury for some people might still be out on whether it is "all" humanities fault or not, there are little things I can do to help the environment. Things that really aren't such a big deal for me to do:

I have all fluorescent compact bulbs in my house.

I "click off" as the commercial says.

I have lights and block heaters on timers.

I recycle.

I use phosphate free detergents.

All these simple little things, that really don't put me out, I do to help the environment. It has been said if everyone helped out a little, it would help a lot.

 

[Flying Crane]

I have come to the conclusion that we need to reduce the population of the earth to 2 billion max, through attrition.

It's a grim thought, but I think there may be a good deal of truth in it.

 

[Ray]

Actually other species are more regulated by humans if for no other reason encroachment and interference. Other species tend to be fairly adaptable to environmental changes if the changes are slow. Not so good if the changes are fast like what appears to be happening now. We don't do so well at it either, just better than some, not as well as others. But then it depends on the speed and severity of the change

We are part of their environment.

But deer are just no damn good at scientific research and things like chemistry; they have a hell of a time holding test tubes with their hooves

Exactly. All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in. We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?

 

[Andrew Green]

We are part of their environment.

Exactly. All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in. We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?

Successful doesn't mean being reckless with our resources. Remember the dot-com bubble and how companies spent everything like there was no tomorrow? Best not do that on a much, much larger scale. We need to restrict resource usage and find ways to produce the resources we need (renewable fuel) or we're going to run out and be left with nothing but a big mess.

Do it smart and we can probably go a lot farther then where we are.

Of course those young upstarts with fooseball tables, leather sofas and big screen tv's in there office didn't want to hear that either, much easier to enjoy the comforts that a whole lot of capital given to you all at once can provide then to put it to use so that in a few years there is still something left.

 

[Flying Crane]

Exactly. All the good we have done making crops more productive, harnessing the atom, making travel so quick are all the things that have helped get us in the predicament we're in. We are successful, but how successful can we be before success becomes our downfall?

Yes, exactly. Most people as individuals have become very separated from food production. Most of us don't know how to raise crops, raise animals, hunt, or fish, clean and dress an animal, etc., food production on the very basic level. We have come to rely upon a network of food supply, so we as individuals do not have to be involved in it. For the vast majority of us, if we cannot buy it at the grocery store and cook it up on our gas or electric stove, we wouldn't know what to do with it.

IF the network of food supply were somehow interrupted for any length of time, millions of people in urban population centers would literally starve to death. Once the current stock of food in the grocery stores and in people's pantrys was exhausted, it would become pretty desperate pretty damn quick, if those supplies could not be adequately restocked.

Oil is becoming more and more expensive. We really do not know how long the current supplies will last. Maybe a couple hundred years, maybe a few months. We really do not know with any true certainty. Right now, we have no alternate energy source that could replace oil on any large scale, if we suddenly found ourselves unable to extract and refine more oil for fuel.

Guess what everyone: that food supply network is intimately reliant on the oil supply. That food needs to be transported everywere, or people don't get to eat, especially people in large cities where there is no room for individuals to raise their own food. No oil to transport food in, no oil for people to leave the city and go elsewhere. All you have is one tank of gas in your car, a bicycle, and your feet. How far do you think you could get, if your entire city became a starvation zone over the course of a couple of weeks?

Our success has potentially painted us into a corner. We need the forsight to recognize this problem now, and take big steps to fix it, before the potential problem becomes a real problem.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Most excellent thread this is.

Many good arguments brought forth.

Me, I look at it this way.

The world is changing and while the jury for some people might still be out on whether it is "all" humanities fault or not, there are little things I can do to help the environment. Things that really aren't such a big deal for me to do:

I have all fluorescent compact bulbs in my house.

I "click off" as the commercial says.

I have lights and block heaters on timers.

I recycle.

I use phosphate free detergents.

All these simple little things, that really don't put me out, I do to help the environment. It has been said if everyone helped out a little, it would help a lot.

You know in one of my post a while back in this thread I actaully put in

:lisafault:

As one possible cause…..but I edited it out... I now regret that decision

 

[Lisa]

You know in one of my post a while back in this thread I actaully put in

:lisafault:

As one possible cause…..but I edited it out... I now regret that decision

I knew it was just a matter of time....sigh...I shoulda stayed out of this thread. lol.