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.
Here's the common sense response to your post. If everyone did accept that Global Warming/Climate Change is a reality and did what was necessary to stop the man made causes, how would it hurt if it turned ou not to be the reality. Would cutting air, water and soil pollution hurt anyone other than big corporations? Would any ecologically sensible initiiatives that promote sustainability ever be a bad thing?
I must take note that you accuse the world's majority and leading scientists not intelligent...
Don't want to hijack this thread and make it about climate change, so the answer to the OP, from my experience, most people do not understand, care about and do not appreciate the fragility of the eco system. I see proof of this daily...sadly.
This is the fallacy of your position, sickofnyc. You are equating global warming with standard air, water, and soil pollution, which it is not. CO2 is NOT an industrial pollutant, unlike mercury, cesium, etc. CO2 will not kill you unless you have it in super high concentrations (and we're talking in the double digit percentage points of air composition), but the other pollutants will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
well a massive meteor could hit us like we a pool ball on a pool table and put us in the Sun at any possible moment without much warning.
But the Global warming crowd will have trouble convincing me it was manmade disaster if we burn up in the sun at which some point (sooner or later) will get us (planet Earth) when it goes Red Dwarf or Supernova on us.
But by then I hope Mankind is long-gone from earth and has spread throughout the nearby Galaxy(s)
Not to be pedantic, but the Sun is a main sequence star and thus will not go supenova, ever
Here's the common sense response to your post. If everyone did accept that Global Warming/Climate Change is a reality and did what was necessary to stop the man made causes, how would it hurt if it turned ou not to be the reality. Would cutting air, water and soil pollution hurt anyone other than big corporations? Would any ecologically sensible initiiatives that promote sustainability ever be a bad thing?
I must take note that you accuse the world's majority and leading scientists to be unintelligent...
Don't want to hijack this thread and make it about climate change, so the answer to the OP, from my experience, most people do not understand, care about and do not appreciate the fragility of the eco system. I see proof of this daily...sadly.
Fools rush in.
You will find experts on all the world's mysteries on this forum. Just ask them...
This is the fallacy of your position, sickofnyc. You are equating global warming with standard air, water, and soil pollution, which it is not. CO2 is NOT an industrial pollutant, unlike mercury, cesium, etc. CO2 will not kill you unless you have it in super high concentrations (and we're talking in the double digit percentage points of air composition), but the other pollutants will.
Not to be pedantic, but the Sun is a main sequence star and thus will not go supenova, ever
You miss the point. The OP is questioning the concern for the environment as a whole. I was responding in kind. This thread is not about Global Warming, although it would be a factor in the bigger picture.
You're very much mistaken in the role that water pollution plays in Climate Change, btw...
Climate change and the oceans
The oceans are a logical place to start to understand how climate change is affecting our planet. The oceans have a central role in protecting Earth. But ocean acidification, rising sea levels and melting ice caps, particularly in the polar region, are endangering our planet. Since water circulates over the globe in a predictable pattern, changes in the great ocean conveyor belt affect worldwide climate and the ocean’s inhabitants. Learn more about these factors as well as the potential for extreme weather and intensified bleaching of coral reefs.
Ocean acidification is different from climate change, but related to it because both are caused by CO2. The ocean is the earth’s largest carbon reservoir, containing more than 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. As more man-made C02 has entered the atmosphere, more of the gas has entered the ocean. But the uptake of excess CO2 comes at a high cost — ocean acidification.
SkepticalScience.com undertook an ambitious effort to perform a more rigorous survey of the scientific literature.
The group searched for abstracts containing the phrases “global climate change” or “global warming” published between 1991 and 2011 in peer-reviewed journals, netting nearly 12,000 papers. A group of 24 people (including 12 volunteers recruited through the Skeptical Science website) reviewed each and every one of them.
The abstracts were served up randomly without identifying information like author names. The degree to which each paper endorsed the consensus view was rated on a seven point scale from “explicit endorsement with quantification” to “explicit rejection with quantification”. Two raters categorized each abstract, with disagreements resolved between them and a tie-breaker if necessary.
About 33 percent of abstracts were categorized as endorsing the consensus, with 0.7 percent rejecting it. The remainder made no statement discernible as either. So among the abstracts with a clearly-stated position, 97.1 percent backed the consensus.
But what about the others? Did those abstracts not state a position because the consensus is so well-accepted as to make doing so unnecessary? Or was the human impact on climate often presented as uncertain in these papers? To answer this question (and further verify the ratings of the other abstracts) the group sent a survey to the authors whose email addresses were listed with the papers—over 8,500 in total. The survey was completed by 1,200 of them, who rated their own abstracts using the same criteria as the research group.
Of the abstracts that the research group had rated as not expressing a position the authors rated more than half of the papers as endorsing the consensus. Overall, 62.7 percent were self-rated as endorsing the consensus, 1.8 percent as rejecting the consensus, and 35.5 percent as having given no position.
So of those that expressed a position, 97.2 percent endorsed the consensus and 2.8 percent rejected it according to the authors of those papers.
I care about 45 years or so out. After that, not so much. Its past my sell by date so I don't really care. The earth can survive man, but it may not be in very good shape for a few hundred thousand years for life. Use it or lose it.
Skeptical Science is a site run by a former cartoonist that is known for publishing disinformation. They habitually cherry-pick data and they moderate the comments on their site in order to delete dissenting viewpoints. Not really the source you want to reference, nor the source that you want your source to reference.
I find it amusing that the explosion of the "Environmental" movement can be traced back to a single book published in the 1960s, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson. While it wasn't written as a novel, it contains so many factual errors that it should be permanently on the NYT Fiction Best Sellers list.
Silent Spring and the misinformation that it contains resulted in what is possibly the largest attack on the world's impoverished peoples that has ever happened, which is the banning of DDT. I'm sure someone will jump in and accuse me of spreading lies here, but before you do, lets take a look at DDT:
1. Supposedly a carcinogenic. ~To this day the carcinogenic qualities of DDT are unproven. Professor Kenneth Mellanby spent 40 years lecturing about the uses of DDT and ate a pinch of DDT at every lecture. He died of natural causes, no cancer involved. In 2002, the CDC stated that there is no clear evidence that exposure to DDT/DDE causes cancer in humans.
2. Caused thinning of bald eagle and other raptor eggshells, thereby threatening the species. ~ Actually, it's DDE that is blamed for this, and while DDE is a metabolite of DDT, most environmentalists fail to mention that thinning egg shells in raptors was taking place for at least 50 years before DDT was used as a pesticide. Further, there are recent studies which show that despite the ban on DDT, raptor eggshells are still 10%-14% thinner than "normal".
Now, how does this result in an attack on the world's impoverished? Quite simply, the aftermath of Silent Spring resulted in a worldwide ban of DDT, which is, to this day, the absolute best mosquito pesticide known to man. Before the ban on DDT, malaria had become almost unheard of in certain areas of the world which had previously been plagued by it. After the ban, malaria once again became an epidemic in these areas. In short, the ban on DDT has caused hundreds of millions of people in third world countries to contract a disease that was easily preventable with the judicious use of a pesticide that was banned due to misinformation. I'm sure those hundreds of millions of people would love to know exactly who was smoking what when the decision was made to throw them under the bus.
Luckily, wiser heads have started to prevail in the pseudo-scientific world of environmentalism. The WHO has recently changed its stance on DDT, recommending that houses in malaria prone areas be sprayed on a regular basis in order to combat the disease.
This post insults millions of people around the world who understood conservation hundreds, or thousands of years before Rachel Carson. In Gilgamesh and the works of Aristotle, for instance. Even in the USA, the Jefferson, Transcendentalists, Teddy Roosevelt, and John Muir were working toward these ideals decades and centuries before Carson. Sound ideas rarely arise from a single source. Even your house cat gets it. It all boils down to this: "don't **** where you eat."
Earth's ecosystem is so vast and varied I honestly believe humanity will be wiped out long before our planet is gone, either as a result of our own mistakes or just good ol' nature and time.
I just wish Mother Earth would fight back more to wake us up more, and when she strikes, IMO, she doesn't strike where I wish she'd strike!
IMO, I don't think people really care what happens to Planet Earth, because deep down inside, most people know this planet is going to come to an end with a nuclear holocaust anyway!
I work in the health care industry, and just in one night, it's mind-boggling all the un-recycled waste that is produced! Everything is gone disposable, even disposable blood pressure cuffs! You change your plastic gloves with every patient! No more wash clothes, just disposable wipes! Infection control has gone out of control in these places!
Gee whiz! When I first started working in a nursing home back in the early 70's we didn't even wear gloves all the way up until the early 80's with the occurrence of AIDS! Now, we've gone overboard!
There's no hope!
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.
But the Global warming crowd will have trouble convincing me it was manmade disaster if we burn up in the sun at which some point (sooner or later) will get us (planet Earth) when it goes Red Dwarf or Supernova on us.
