AUDub 11,148 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 He has to compensate in some manor. Which manor? This one? (Sorry, EMT. Once again, I couldn't resist.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,629 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I don't think I can afford that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't think I can afford that one. Most Americans couldn't afford the power bill for any of Gore's homes. Oh, the irony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't think I can afford that one. ;)/> Most Americans couldn't afford the power bill for any of Gore's homes. Oh, the irony. It's not called irony...it's called hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 No, actually I have to ask myself what in hell this has to do with global warming. :laugh:/> Follow the money. The guy screaming the loudest about AGW coincidentally is making the most OFF of it. Gibbs Rule # 39 : There is no such thing as coincidence Nice...I like the Gibbs rule... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 A lot of articles out today related to Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace...says he left the group when it took a "hard turn to the left"...funny...he's way too logical: 'Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species...It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.' Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming...When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I don't think I can afford that one. ;)/> Most Americans couldn't afford the power bill for any of Gore's homes. Oh, the irony. It's not called irony...it's called hypocrisy. Hey, I was doing my best Alanis Morissette impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Weagle777.......I think this scientist agrees with you. Be sure and read the Status and Views section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Founder of Green Peace goes on record. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-hum/ Is this guy a flat earther or simply a denier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Weagle777.......I think this scientist agrees with you. Be sure and read the Status and Views section. http://en.wikipedia....ki/John_Christy LOL! Apparently, the "debate" here has shifted from "AGW as hoax" to "it won't be as bad as some say". I suppose that's progress. From your reference: "it is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way."[7] http://www.sourcewat...John_R._Christy It may seem perplexing that Christy was a co-drafter of the 2003 American Geophysical Union position statement on climate change, which concludes that "Human activities are increasingly altering Earth's climate, and... natural influences alone cannot explain the rapid increase in surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,629 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It is interesting that a cofounder of green peace (a scientist) Patrick Moore has come out to discredit, in his scientific opinion, the certainty of man made climate change. On top of that, he pretty much sums it up the way I see it. Computer models drive this "probability" of man made climate change but history and ecological/geological research show that CO2 levels were higher in the past than they are today. He states that water vapor in the atmosphere has more to do with climate shifts than CO2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 It is interesting that a cofounder of green peace (a scientist) Patrick Moore has come out to discredit, in his scientific opinion, the certainty of man made climate change. On top of that, he pretty much sums it up the way I see it. Computer models drive this "probability" of man made climate change but history and ecological/geological research show that CO2 levels were higher in the past than they are today. He states that water vapor in the atmosphere has more to do with climate shifts than CO2. It's also interesting that he was hired and paid for by timber interests who advocate clear cutting of tropical forests. (He thinks we should replace them with bio-engineered plants.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Just something to keep things in perspective...the entire population of the world, 7 billion people, if standing shoulder to shoulder, would only cover a 500 square mile area. Montgomery County, Alabama covers 800 square miles. Does it REALLY seem like we could drastically affect the world's climate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,148 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Yes. You have to sum the impact from every small contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Just something to keep things in perspective...the entire population of the world, 7 billion people, if standing shoulder to shoulder, would only cover a 500 square mile area. Montgomery County, Alabama covers 800 square miles. Does it REALLY seem like we could drastically affect the world's climate? Certainly not if you assume we are all going to just stand shoulder to shoulder until we die. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. How so? Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject. Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumps 3,704 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. How so? Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject. Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history. So do you have specific knowledge of humans destroying their environment to the extent that the planet became uninhabitable for them or do you just BELIEVE that the possibility exists? It seems to me that you just have faith that it is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted February 28, 2014 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 And yet you will not acknowledge the science that contradicts your faith in AGW. Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject. Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. How so? Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject. Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history. I have always believed that the climate changes. That is what I meant by my proof through history. Do we affect the planet? Absolutely. But on a massive scale that rivals the earth's own producing of climate altering pollution, I can't say that we have done any worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,373 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the earth was incapable of healing itself, none of us would be here. Life would have been destroyed long ago. The first job given was to tend the garden, and was given by God to the first man Adam. So by divine appointment we should be stewards of this planet. We should all be conservationists, and should do our part, but, if the earth had survived this long, it has proven without a shadow of a doubt, if you subscribe to the earth being billions of years old, that we aren't capable of destroying it. History proves this. The issue has nothing to do with destroying earth, it's about altering or poisoning the environment we need for life. That environment is dynamic, complex and relatively delicate. Technology and population growth has given us the power to pull "threads from this complex fabric" (so to speak). It's possible that if we pull enough threads of the right type, a very complex system will start to unravel. Given time, nature can probably re-select and form a new ecological complex, but we don't exist on that long of a time scale. That certainly is possible, and we are a destructive bunch, but I just believe it is unlikely. Of course I am not coming from a position of having done research so my opinion is purely based on history. There's a big difference between believing and understanding. And to rely on history is ultimately to rely on the same science you profess to reject. How so? Well, the distinction I make between believing and understanding is the former can exist on faith, while the latter requires specific knowledge of the subject. Relying on the history of climate changes naturally requires acceptance of the science that reveals that history. So do you have specific knowledge of humans destroying their environment to the extent that the planet became uninhabitable for them or do you just BELIEVE that the possibility exists? It seems to me that you just have faith that it is possible. I suspect the number of thermonuclear weapons currently in existence would serve to make the planet uninhabitable so the possibility exists by definition. But what I am referring to is the gradual degradation of the ecosystem combined with the steady increase of population to the point we ultimately exceed the carrying capacity of the earth for the number of humans that exist. At some point soon after, the population would crash with all the implications that would entail. But I am sure there will be survivors. This is a common model for all ecological systems with increasing populations As a matter of fact, we are already experience a sixth mass extinction that is anthropogenic: "The abundance of species extinctions considered anthropogenic, or due to human activity, have sometimes (especially when referring to hypothesized future events) been collectively called the "Anthropocene extinction".[29][30] The Anthropocene is a term introduced in 2000. Most biologists believe that we are at the beginning of an anthropogenic mass extinction that is accelerating at a large rate.[citation needed] In The Future of Life (2002), E.O. Wilson of Harvard calculated that, if the current rate of human disruption of the biosphere continues, one-half of Earth's higher lifeforms will be extinct by 2100. A 1998 poll conducted by the American Museum of Natural History found that seventy percent of biologists believe that we are in the midst of an anthropogenic extinction.[31] Numerous scientific studies—such as a 2004 report published in Nature,[32] and papers authored by the 10,000 scientists who contribute to the IUCN's annual Red List of threatened species—have since reinforced this conviction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.