Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why groups like the Nature Conservancy would have a n official position on climate change. It doesn't seem central to their mission and they are not a scientific association.
I guess I lump all manner of human disruption into one box. Going to your Great Barrier Reef example, if it thrived during earlier warming periods, but continues to die especially in the last 50 years during mankind's heavy population explosion (and including any kind of pollution and hands-on damage), man is still to blame for the loss, no?
I think that during previous geological eras some sections of the Great Barrier Reef would have perhaps been disrupted due to rising temperatures, but in this day and age, such die-offs have been greatly aggravated by overfishing and other non-climate forms of habitat loss. Furthermore, warm water contains fewer gases like CO2 than cold water - just look at a glass of cold water taken from the fridge and placed at room temperature. And when CO2 is added to seawater, the high concentrations of calcium and magnesium in the seawater prevent large swings in pH that would otherwise take place due to adding CO2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back to NE
Yes, the earth has had it's ebbs and flows of temperature (and other natural disruptions) but in the last 140 years or so mankind has increasingly put inordinate pressure on the natural order. Burning eons of fossil fuels in a very short time period is probably leading the charge but cow farts, deforestation and other things don't help either. And politicians should not ignore the problem(s) thinking "this too shall pass." We've got to protect our current little era. If we don't do better, by 2100, half the world could be uninhabitable.
Look at it this way - man-made CO2 contributions to the atmosphere are 5% or less of all the CO2 contributions to the atmosphere, no matter how huge man-made CO2 emissions are. And total CO2 makes up a mere 4% of the atmosphere; the anthropogenic proportion of that is just 0.0016%. Even though humans have contributed CO2 to the atmosphere way more than they did 200 years ago, we're talking only about a teeny-tiny increase! Plus, as I mentioned, there used to be a heck of a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere millions and hundreds of millions of years ago; the Earth is now practically starving for more CO2.
I wonder where all the green groups stand on War??? Because you know, War = less humans and humans are bad for the planet then war should be good right?
I'm of the opinion, and educated in many things Native American, that people in olden times would use the resources of a given area, then when food sources dried up, they packed up and moved on. Now, these were not on a global scale, and when they were gone, the land and wild healed itself. What may be happening now is much more global in nature, and done much, much faster. We will use it up if we don't pace ourselves as a civilation.
And I'm not just speaking of North America. Particularly unsettling is what I've seen in northern parts of Alberta province in Canada. I must say that I'd read a lot about it, and it's a fairly small space that was OBLITERATED by tar sands removal. But still. It happened. It's a wasteland. Though a relatively small one.
And I'm not just speaking of North America. Particularly unsettling is what I've seen in northern parts of Alberta province in Canada. I must say that I'd read a lot about it, and it's a fairly small space that was OBLITERATED by tar sands removal. But still. It happened. It's a wasteland. Though a relatively small one.
The companies at least say that they're trying their best to ecologically restore said wastelands once they finish each area. Whether this is really so, I'm not in a position to say.
I wonder where all the green groups stand on War??? Because you know, War = less humans and humans are bad for the planet then war should be good right?
Ha, sure if wars were still fought with swords and other primitive weapons. But modern wars, especially nuclear could devastate the earth. I visited the Mekong Delta in Vietnam in 2004. Nearly 30 years after the war, the area is still fairly devoid of birds and other wildlife from all the chemicals like Agent Orange that were used by the US. No doubt other types of more mundane pollution contribute as well.
Climate change is more dangerous to the economies as it will close us down .....See Government today want everyone to change which will stop many jobs every where and close down oil and natural gas and coal electricity will be gone and car and air plans and emergency cars and heating homes with any gas will be illegal ...........................Then the answers for this are electric cars a 80 thousand dollars , and no foundries for steel metals , no more glass and then fuel cell cars are 150 thousand dollars each which run on hydrogen ...................... Then houses which are not energy efficient will be condemned and non sellable with new regulation of red tape ......................solar panels are small for what is expected and wind turbines are also to small and with more regulation the business will move out of the country or go out of business ...... See government will not see poor people who need a cheap car to get to work for small wages , as they are not in the vision of these leaders , as all they can see is business stealing from people is a good thing
Let me expand my question: Are there environmental groups that hardly even mention climate change or global warming and that focus exclusively on any one of the other environmental issues?
They all agree because they're following what in my mind is the corrupted and politicized science of the IPCC. They rely way too much on models which don't entirely make sense, and they leave out way too many natural factors which have always been at play in terms of the climate. Also, it's not so much "there is no longer any debate" as it is that the environmental movement has suppressed the other side of the debate - and has accused it of not practicing real science in the manner of the Inquisition hunting down Jews and Muslims in Spain. Plus, the 97% consensus is bogus.
I was asking this series of questions because I'm ardently pro-environment in most respects but I disagree with the mainstream environmental movement with regard to climate change. And I'm very sure I'm by no means alone either. For example, look at Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. Also, at least in 2014 and 2015, according to a Gallup survey, slightly more Americans believed in rainforest loss and biodiversity loss than in climate change as an environmental issue of great importance, with markedly more Americans placing value on actual pollution as a major environmental issue. Finally, the book "Landscapes and Cycles" downplays man-made climate change as a threat to the Sierra Nevada, its snowpack, and its ecosystems and wildlife, if not being entirely skeptical of man-made climate change. Well worth taking a look at all these!!!
The charge that the IPCC's position on climate change was "politicized" has already been debunked. There is no legitimate "other side of the debate." The only debate that remains among scientists is what to do about it. And the 97% consensus is not "bogus." The Heartland Institute is an organization infamously funded and driven by industry interests; it's therefore rather odd that you reference it in a post which purports to be concerned about politicization.
And what Americans choose or choose not to believe is wholly irrelevant to the facts.
If you want to know the facts about climate change, then reference sites that are actually run by climate scientists: RealClimate
Seems to me that these days, the environmental movement in general toes the line of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in terms of a scientific consensus pointing to dangerous anthropogenic climate change due mainly to greenhouse gas emissions. It also seems to me that climate change is the number one or at least number two issue of the environmental movement these days. All this was less the case as recently as the 1990s, let alone the 1980s and beforehand.
My question is: In this day and age, are there environmental groups that think green in terms of the other issues (e.g. endangered species, noxious air/water/soil pollution) but that are skeptical that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous for the planet? In other words, are there environmental groups that value issues such as endangered species or the Pacific garbage bowl but that agree more with the Heartland Institute when it comes to climate change (i.e. that it's mainly natural, has always occurred in Earth's history, and that it's not more dangerous than in the geological past)?
Nice astroturfing Heartland Institute/Koch Bros. Fake Posters Inc.
Do you really want to get into organic chem in this thread? If so.. you better get ready to hit the books..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
