There are some scientists who have publicly stated that global warming is a hoax. Or, I should say, they dispute the idea that the climate change the planet is undoubtedly experiencing is a result of human activity. (I don't believe that those same scientists challenge the plentiful evidence that average temperatures on Earth have been rising, especially most recently.) When playing poker, my friend Dave sometimes says, "The cards don't lie," which means when we throw our hands down there will be one winner and that will be clear to everyone. Applying that premise to this issue, any and all scientists should always be welcome to conduct, interpret and present their research on climate change, as on any other issue. I don't advocate threatening -- or even shouting down -- those who publicly disagree with the majority, whether we're talking science or any other matter. Facts are facts, and they don't lie -- though they can be misinterpreted, and it often takes years of studies and piles of information to clearly see the truth.I don't, however, believe that we should forego attempts at reining in greenhouse gases that are likely the source of most climate change. The vast majority of the science is probably correct, and human beings have almost certainly contributed to the rising temperatures. It is reckless to ignore this and almost as reckless to adopt a position that, because there is a small segment of the scientific community that disagrees, we should wait to enact public policy remedies for this problem. It's possible that we are too late to reverse the course we are on -- a course that may have catastrophic consequences -- and if we wait to convert those scientists who disagree we will definitely doom future generations to a calamity not of their making.
Friends of mine who disagree should read an article called "The Denialists" in the March 12 issue of The New Yorker. The piece, by Michael Specter, speaks not of global warming, but of H.I.V., which a small number of scientists, led by molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, believe is unrelated to AIDS. This idea has taken hold in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 20 million people have died from the disease and millions more are infected. Many in the region refuse to take Western medicines and, instead, put all of their faith in local healers, who mix concoctions of herbs. Meanwhile, in the West, AIDS is no longer an immediate death sentence.
Would those who advocate putting the brakes on attempts to limit climate change apply the same standard to treatment for AIDS? Should we wait until all of the possible science is in before we administer antiretroviral drugs -- the only treatment that has worked so far -- to patients infected with H.I.V.? I don't think that anyone would want to adopt that policy and to risk the lives of millions, and it seems that we should follow the same course on one of the other great issues of our time: global warming.
41 comments:
so how do u know if global warming is gonna happen
It's happening now, all around us. That is pretty clear. The question is whether it is being caused by humans or is a cyclical change that we have no control over. Even if the latter is true, our actions aren't helping, so shouldn't we do something?
global warmin is a true thing...its happening ....it is caused by co2 dats logical...if population increases ppl wud take in oxygen n exhale co2 which wud result in global warming...also if d population increases den it wud mean sale of more cars....sale of more petrol . also usage of more petrol which wud give out co2 in air ...thus leadin to global warming
Like, good explanation n stuff. Now explain why the ice cap on mars is melting.
The article in this url gives a pretty good explanation:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/
y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
Or you could just google "ice caps melting on mars"
Basically, it's a seasonal thing on mars. The ice melts during the summer and freezes in the winter.
Oh! Another fun fact. The ice caps aren't melting on mars. They're subliming (turning from a solid to a gas).
If we all stepped back and looked at this thing spiritually instead of our "minds"..I think everyone would realize that we are in for a very rude awakening..Mother Earth is pissed and she's not going to take it much longer. It is time for us to come out of the bubble of 'self' and take part in healing this wonderful planet we call home.
It might be true but in the meantime, we better turn up the heat as some people have seen it PHYSICALLY happening. For example, people were surprised when ice caps are still melting in Greenland in winter.
"Catastrophic" indeed. We're talking end of the world, people, I honestly think it could get that bad.
The world will end eventually, but we're definitely putting it ahead of schedule.
Jesus, this really scary.
like edward o wilson we adapted this idea rthat we were better than nature by wiping out countless other species and anything we thought as anti-human instead of realising we are part of nature.Instead of being stewards we've been rapists.Money and economic growth have the world and people miserable an equitable world where we had the basic things we needed would have been better these two things have epitomised the greatest tragedy of the human race.
You guys are completely insane. If you are so arrogant as to think that we have the power to destroy the planet, or to save it, you are dreaming and full of yourselves. This place has been around for billions of years; us: only thousands. It will be here long after we are all gone, as its natural progression dictates. And we will be replaced as the dominant group on this planet, like fish, amphibians, or reptiles before us. In the meantime, we are scaring the kids with notions of impending doom of biblical proportions, hence giving the government (especially liberal democrats) the opportunity to tax us to death and take away more of our freedoms all in the name of the environment.
I'm all for conservation and reducing pollution, but not at the expense of technological progress and the expension of our quality of life. If you want to live in a tent and wipe with bark, go ahead, but don't judge me for cranking up my A/C, or watering my lawn.
Frank
Minneapolis
P.S. If you're going to post on here, use porper spelling; I still have a headache from trying to read some comments on here.
1 of us might not be able to destroy the world, but there are billions of us on earth contributing to destroy mother earth
The Earth is not your mother! Read the post: it says "we" as in all billions of us, not just individuals. "We" can't be so arrogant as to think that we can destroy, or save, the Earth before it destroys us. It amazes me that we think we can control the weather and climate and that the fate of the Earth is in our hands. Like I said, the Earth will be around long after the very last one of our descendents is gone.
Frank
Minneapolis
Back in the 70's we were predicting global cooling, now it's global warming. We are told chocolate is bad for you, then it can save your life. The latest drug will save lives, oh wait... it also causes heart attacks so stop taking it. Ethonal is the answer, oh wait not really because it's not sustainable and is only successful due to government subsidies (sorry for the spelling Frank).
The very people that are out there making million from this issue are also out there creating the most pollution. We are all pawns in this little game the media plays with us. As a culture we have lost the drive to find the truth. We believe whatever we are told and then spew it to all our friends.
We are becoming a world of mindless lemings that do what we are told and follow wherever we are lead no matter what the outcome may be.
WAKE UP WORLD!!!
What happened to the glaciers that once covered my great state of Minnesota?
Oh yea, they melted and created the 10,000 lakes that we are famous for. News Flash: That was about 9,000 years ago. (http://mrbdc.mnsu.edu/mnbasin/fact_sheets/glaciers.html)
This was a few years before SUV's, Styrofoam containers, and coal burning power plants that we have now. Educate yourselves so you can look at ALL the facts and make up your own mind.
Without 'greenhouse gases' (mostly water vapor but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone) we would FREEZE once the sun went down.
Climate Change happens without human interference. It always has, and it always will. There is nothing we can do about that. It happened long before humans were on this planet, it will continue to happen long after we are gone.
The arrogance of the Al Gore types and limousine liberals to declare that they know without a doubt that today's climate is the optimum climate for everyone on the planet, past, present and future, is laughable. How self-important can you be? Could they have stopped the glaciers from receding if they were alive during the last ice-age? Maybe they could have held a concert and then there would still be glaciers covering Minneapolis today? Sounds about like what they think now.
Who cares if glaciers are receding in parts of the world! Glaciers have been advancing through and receding from Minnesota (and across the globe) for hundreds of thousands of years and the sky has not fallen yet.
David
Richfield, Minnesota
It's so refreshing to hear voices of reason among the uneducated propaganda droids of the anti-capitalist left.
Let's talk about greenhouse gases. They make up less than 1% of the atmosphere. CO2 comprises 0.54% of that 1%.
Think capitalism is a major source of CO2? Volcanos spew out 2x - 4x more CO2 every year than humans. Decaying plant and animal matter on land produce roughly 6x more than we do. The oceans can cycle between producing and absorbing 10,000 times as much CO2 as humans will ever produce.
Did you take statistics in college? Even ignoring volcanos and dead leaves in the fall (both of which dwarf human production) humans produce 0.01% of CO2 globally, which is about 0.0000005% of the atmosphere. Still think we have any impact?
What makes up the rest of the greenhouse gases? The biggest portion (weighing in at around 95%) is water vapor. I guess we should be devoting 190 times more effort stopping evaporation than we're spending trying to stop CO2.
What's also interesting is that CO2 levels, historically, have lagged global temperature, not led them. It's common knowledge among oceanographers that the ocean both absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere as well as discharges it into the atmosphere. It's also common knowledge among anyone who's soda has gotten warm and gone flat that cool liquid has the ability to retain more gas than warm liquid. With CO2 levels lagging temperature changes, (by an average of around 800 years) is it that hard to grasp that global warming causes higher ocean temperatures, causing higher CO2 levels, not the other way around?
But with as loud as they scream, you'd think the tree-huggers would have to be right. And they are. About certain things. The world has been heating up the last 30 years. It's strange, though, that until around 1940 the world was also heating up. Then, the trend changed and temps started falling. This coincided nicely with the post-WWII global economic boom when fossil fuel consumption went up several fold between 1940 and 1970 but temps fell the whole time. Then in 1970 when a global economic slow-down started and fossil fuel consumption slowed, the earth started warming up and has been since.
If you want some real sources of global warming, I encourage you to cross reference average global temperatures with the frequency of sun-spots. The correlation has been almost identical since records of solar activity have been kept.
Imagine that. The only statistically significant source of heat on planet earth is causing it to warm up.
Chris
George Bush is responsible for sun spots! He must be stopped.
mitul barot says that it' s a very harmful and dengeous situation.
Big business (OIL, BANKS, AUTO INDUSTRY) lobby, bribe and generally preasure our and overseas governments to missreport, challenge and generally confront those who simply report scientific discovery. When the facts don't meet the bottom line, squash it, anything that cuts into profit must be challenged. Why do you think our government replaced almost all the scientific advisers in the past seven years with yes men. That goes along with all the civilian military advisers. If you don't go along with the view, you're wrong and are out.
I beleive that modern civilization has been one of the reasons that is adding to Global Warming. From what I have read, Man may be the agent that is tipping the earth into this condition.
"Stop the Industrial Lobby in Washington!"
Beside "Stop the Industrial Lobby in Washington!" what exactly is your point????
My Point!
Yes man is responsible, we are capable of doing something about it (if it's not too late), but greed and politics are in the way.
I am not a scientist, but I do read and watch. If we don't get off our duffs and clean up government, then nothing will ever be done.
"That is my point!"
Sorry if I offend anyone!
we all know that we are contributing to global warming
but what are we gona do to stop it
The answer to this question is: we simply can't stop it. Climate and weather do what they do: they change. It's fine to try to reduce pollution and waste, but when it comes to changing the weather, that's another story entirely. Frankly, it is something much bigger than us and again, as stated before, we can't be that arrogant as to think we can control it and "save" the planet. And if you want to talk about lobbyists in Washington, you need first to look not at your so-called industrial big business, but at very leftist, almost communist groups like the AARP (ranked #1 in the "Power 25" of lobbyists in Washington,) the AFL-CIO (#3,)the National Education Association (#9.) The American Israel Public Affairs Committee came in at #2. In fact, the only investor-related organization that made the Power 25 is the American Bankers Association at #12 (no big oil, no auto industry.) The real bad guys in this, the ones that do the most damage with regards to the "climate crisis" situation are lobbying groups like the Sierra Club (#37,) the Natural Resources Defense Council, #79, the Environmental Defense Fund, #86, and the National Wildlife Federation #88. These groups will stop at nothing to slow down progress and limit our ability to tap our own natural resources. If you really believe that "modern civilization" is one of the reasons for global warming, then you are misinformed. Take air quality for example: the EPA itself reports that air quality has never been this good and that pollutant levels are decreasing. Progress and technological improvements are GOOD things: they make our lives better and our planet cleaner.
Frank
Minneapolis
Liberals, Conservatives, no one lives up to what they preach. Stop all lobbying. Teach government in school, half our children come out of school without a clue as to how government works. Educate the general public as to what their rights really are. Then tell our represenatives what we want and our elected representatives are required to oblige our requests.
If they do not, then vote them out. Between all of the alternate energy sources (Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal and the exotics) the billions of dollars now wasted, can be redirected to research and development. We develped Atomic bombs when we needed them, there is no reason why we cannot press an all out effort to restore our planet. A government sponsored, pure scientific research project (similar to the Manhatton project), devoted to the enviornment.
BobBrug
Long Island NY
Side note:
CO2 is the culprit, going to corn or grain based fuel still produces Carbon exhaust gas. Same story with Coal as an alternate.
There are safe alternates, but then you fight the Oil and Car Co. Lobbies.
Bobbrug
Long Island NY
I've been following the discussion, and I want to thank everyone for their comments. I want to strongly disagree with the last line of a post from earlier today, which said: "Progress and technological improvements are GOOD things: they make our lives better and our planet cleaner."
I've come to believe that the opposite is true. Most technology -- what we call "progress" -- has negative consequences that are far worse than any positives they bring. I think this is true in the realm of the environment, but what I have in mind even more are the effects on our culture. In vast and irreversible ways, we have destroyed much of what had been handed down from generation to generation in a multitude of ways.
One way, for example, is our food, which used to be grown outside the back door and now comes packaged and processed from who knows where with chemicals added and the nutrition taken out. (Read some Wendell Berry for more on this.)
Our children get a watered-down, mass-market culture from the media instead of from their parents and grandparents around the kitchen table or on the back porch. We have all sorts of material goods we've been convinced we need, and their manufacture destroys resources and using them makes us fat and disconnects us from each other.
We never stop as a society to think about the effects of new things on our culture, and as a result we've been stripped of our birthright. I don't know how we get back to a place where we can redeem ourselves. As time goes on, fewer people are aware of it. It may be too late already.
sssscaryyyyyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sooo... Maybe we all need to ditch our 'modern' furnaces that burn relatively clean natural gas and trade them for ‘old-fashioned’ fireplaces that burn wood; or better yet, coal? Let’s picture the 100,000,000+ households in the United States alone, each one going out and scavenging for firewood whenever they ran low. Do you think they would care about reforestation when we they just cutting down trees so their families can survive another cold night? Wouldn't you then complain about the lack of trees?
Instead of buying a fraction of a cow from the store, we could all have our very own methane-producing cows right in our own back yards to feed our families as well. Who needs the ‘progress’ of modern farming? Can we please go back to a time when we were nomads who just moved to another location once we exhausted an area of its resources? All that ‘progress’ of rotating crops so farmers can grow on the same land year after year is really a pain in my…! The discovery of dominant and recessive genes in the 1800’s that allows today’s farmers to grow more disease and weather resistant crops, I wish that never happened. Lets get rid of all of the ‘progress’ we have made as a society. I love this idea! I guess it would make sense to grow your own vegetables and herbs, though. Oh wait, I already do that because that makes sense.
As far as what is on you mind even more with regards to the “effects on our culture”, hmmm, let me see: Don’t forget that Blacks and women now get to vote in our county because of evil progress. Do you think our culture was better without that? Women working out side of the home? What a shame. Are there some bad things that have come from progress, I’m sure there are. Does that mean you get to pick and choose in hindsight which ones you like and don’t like? Nope. Life doesn’t work that way.
There is however, one easy way to keep your kids away from the “watered-down, mass-market culture from the media instead of from their parents and grandparents around the kitchen table or on the back porch.” It’s called ditch your TV for good and invite Grandma and Grandpa over for lemonade on the back porch once and a while. We don’t have to go back to the stone age to accomplish that.
What would make you happy? If we all moved back into caves? If you are so convinced that progress is bad, surely there is a time period that you consider the ideal time to 'freeze' progress. What exactly is that time-period? Is it 20, 30, or 50 years ago? Is it the middle ages or the stone age? What time period would you like the rest of us to live in?
David
Minneapolis
Global warming is happening. I don't think anyone can argue that. The temperature is rising just as it has in the past. We have also seen global cooling in my lifetime. I don't believe that humans have much control over it. There are many studies that contradict one another. Who do you believe? Scientists are taking an issue we don't completely understand, hypothesizing, and then the media publishes the hypothesis. I may be wrong here but it seems the scientific method has gone out the window. We publish hypothesis as theory before they have been tested. Then when they are proven wrong we don't hear anything about it. As a culture we like to feel like we can make a difference. Sometimes the issues are bigger than we are and we can't change them. One day the sun will expand and consume the earth. I don't think hybrid vehicles will stop that. Who knows maybe we will have colonized another planet by then.
Jimbo,
I understand and share you view of what progress, and mostly modern culture as a result of it, has caused us and our children to become and how it has changed and shaped our lives. I would much rather have this discussion face to face, at a table, over some good food and wine. I believe we are slowly losing our ability to interact with each other in person, that we are giving up the wholesomeness of good, homemade, food and that we have forgotten to stop to enjoy our lives all for bigger profits and higher efficiency in a faster and faster paced world. Unfortunately, these changes are not always made by choice, but rather they are often forced upon us. But that is an entirely separate issue, which we can debate at another time. The issue at hand is global warming and the massive hysteria that it is generating. A new British study now shows that driving your car to the store is less harmful to the environment than walking there, in terms of CO2 emissions. Is this not a view completely opposite to that of the environmental movement? CO2 is classified as a pollutant now? Maybe I should feel guilty or pay a tax just for breathing. But most importantly, is this not all completely and utterly insane? The debate is far from over, but the real question is this: is the subject of the debate (global warming and man’s responsibility for it) legitimate and worthy of our time? The answer is no.
Frank
Minneapolis
I knew that someone would reply like David from Minneapolis, with hyperbole and attempts to make my point of view sound ridiculous. I'm not saying we can turn the clock back now, and I'm not saying there's one particular moment where we had it right, and I am certainly not saying that we should give away any of the social progress we've made.
David would have it seem that, because I don't agree with the effects of technology on culture, I want to reinstitute slavery and repeal the right of women to vote. You'll notice that I never wrote anything of the sort.
However, I believe that in many areas of our lives we have let the march of "progress" change parts of our culture that didn't need to be changed. I don't have the answers to how we repair this, but that doesn't mean the questions shouldn't be asked.
I thank Frank for his comments. I'm not saying that the only good comments are those that agree with me, but rather that worthwhile comments offer reasoned opinion and questions rather than sarcastic ad hominem.
This is posted to David, Frank, and Chad. Why always the extremes, is there no happy medium. "Cow on every lawn, fireplace instead of furnace?" Why don't you say "crawl into a cave?"
Beside the wood burner and the gas furnace both produce CO2.
I propose Science develope really clean energy sources (Wind, Hydrogen, Tidal, Solar, GEOSS).
Both Wind and Tidal can produce enough Hydorgen.
GEOSS is a global synchronose solar array that beams energy by microwave to earth.
If any or all of this were developed twenty or thirty years ago (when science first started to study the CO2 buildup), then we might not be in this position today. Hawaii had an observatory back in the forties that started tracking the CO2 buildup.
But, that's all water under the bridge, hind sight stinks.
BobBrug
Long Island NY
Please, check out this article, it totally changed my mind on the validity of global warming.
The "scientists" that are denying global warming are being paid to do their research by ExxonMobile and other corporations that profit from us using fossil fuels. In truth paying them money to give the results these companies want Americans to hear.
That is not unbiased science.
I'm a highly educated person (masters and doctorate degrees) and I feel as though I have been a sheep by not realizing that these corporations were spreading propaganda that was making me questions whether global warming was real.
I now feel stupid for not seeing that I was being duped by propaganda, just like other Americans.
Anyway, here's the link, take from it what you will.
www.msnbc.msn.com
/id/20122975/site/newsweek
Jennifer, I have been reading and watching the news regarding Warming for over thirty years. The first program that tweaked my interest was PBS Nova. They did a segment in the late seventies regarding the use of Hydrogen as a fuel. Even then they reported the Hawaii CO2 observations and how it might increase the reflected solar energy and raise Global temperatures.
Bobbrug
Long Island NY
Jennifer,
Nobody is denying that global warming exists; more specifically that climate is changing. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this nature of climate itself. However, I do not believe that we are as responsible for it as some would like us to think. Furthermore, I do not believe that we are significant enough in the history and life of our planet to allow us to think that we can "save" it. To me, this lack of humility in the face of nature and this new level of utter arrogance are simply appalling (read my July 25th entry.)
The Newsweek article has valid points, but keep one thing in mind: the biggest financial contributor to the propaganda is the government. While being funded by government grants and research money to study the EFFECTS of global warming rather than its cause, many scientists have created "evidence" of it and of course, built a scenario of doom for us worthy of Hollywood. There are no grants given out to study opposing views to global warming. That's why some companies have commissioned some scientists to weigh in from that angle. When reading the article, red flags spring up: one, Eleanor Cliff is a contributing writer. She is a committed Bush-hater whom has long made up her mind about global warming and who refuses to hear any opposing views. The Sierra Club is referenced: the organization's position against big business and for all things environmental is well known. Did you know there is a bridge here in Minnesota in much worse shape than the I-35W one that collapsed last week? The Sierra Club has been credited for stopping all initiatives to replace that old bridge, all in the name of the environment. Maybe when that one collapses also and more people are killed will the Sierra Club step out of the way and a new, more adequate one can be built. (Can anyone believe it has been suggested that global warming might have caused the I-35W bridge to collapse??? Where does it stop? This is nuts!!!) And what exactly is the purpose of the Nazi references in the article? These facts are completely irrelevant unless the author deliberately attempts to incite the reader into associating these scientists to Nazis. The likely conclusion: if you are opposed to global warming views, you are a Nazi (or at least you fled Nazi ruled countries, but in any case, you were at some point associated to Nazis, therefore, you must be one as well.)
Finally, propaganda is everywhere. Read, find facts, and make up your own mind. Unfortunately, not all is reported, and not all is reported truthfully.
I leave you with two things: first, the hurricane predictions last year. First, they said at least 15 big ones, in the wake of Katrina the year before and of course given all this global warming. Then they revised it to 12. Then 7. How many did we get in the end? A couple? Very few in the media reported it; fewer held anyone accountable for putting fear in the minds of many all summer and fall. Secondly, the global warming "crisis" to me smells of Y2K bug: a big, phony hype based on fear and a perfect reason to inflict more taxes upon us and tell us what we can and cannot do, all in the name of the environment. I should have cashed in on the Y2K bug scare, but I missed out. Not this time: I'm selling carbon credits and offsets at discount prices. Just send me $100 and stop feeling guilty about driving your car and using incandescent light bulbs. Oh, and don't forget only to use one square of toilet paper when wiping.
Frank
Minneapolis
I think alternative sources of clean energy are great. I would love to see clean energy become as efficient and cost effective as fossil fuels and in time replace them. I think we are on our way there but the money is not there to spur the technological growth needed.
I try to conserve energy and recycle. I do these things to help keep the air clean and water clean. I enjoy the outdoors and don't want to spoil that enjoyment.
I am not a scientist. I don't do exhaustive studies on global warming or the effects and causes. I am not qualified to throw out facts on this issue because the only facts I can throw out are those published by other scientists and they tend to disagree.
If you pay someone enough they will say whatever you want them to say. Unfortunately this holds true for both sides of the story. Money seems to taint truth.
I don't know if we can save the planet. I don't know if the planet needs saving. I don't know if we can destroy the planet either. What I do know is that I can do my part in conserving energy and limit my pollution. I want my kids to be able to enjoy a hike in the woods or a relaxing day at the lake without worrying about being poisoned by the water or air.
I feel that the global warming issue is not completely understood by the scientific community. We have found many ways to try and measure temperatures in history but scientists disagree on how to read the data. Carbon dating which has been used to date fossils and such for years has been brought into question.
In my opinion I'm going to do what I can to keep the earth an enjoyable place to live and not worry about all the other issues. If we all did the same the other issues wouldn't matter anyway.
I am not saying I am environmentally perfect but none of us are. I own an SUV and like it.
I would guess we can go back and forth about this all day, but as they say in big business, "the bottom line is", can something be done by us?
Until a real study is done, no one knows. Until THIS administration is over, no one will ever know.
I don't know about anyone else, but I would love to see our country send REAL SCIENTISTS overseas to meet with the rest of the world and be funded to do this type of study.
Now who would fund this you ask. OIL PROFITS! There are limitless supplies from that souce.
Reducing or (impossible) eliminating carbon based fuel, eventually will reduce the build up of CO2 (If we have not already passed some tipping point) .
There is a project that is studying the defrosting of the tundra (permafrost) at the arctic circle. As it defrosts it begins to decay. This mass of decaying prehistoric organic material is about the size of Alaska and is pumping tons of Carbon gas into the atmosphere.
The studies indicated that we may be at or just passed the tipping point where anything we do now will not matter because the amount of Carbon being released is equal to or greater than what man is doing.
Without big industry and science we would be lost in any effort to attempt to reverse this, but it's worth an all out effort.
If I am putting too much into this please feel free to tell me.
My wife tells me to shut up all the time.
Smile, life is too short.
Bobbrug
Long Island NY
if us humans keep going the way we are, I would like to call this suicide then.how can we create so much destruction in such a little amount of time?
If anything, it isn't just arrogance, it is ignorance as well.
"Ignorance is bliss" has now evolved to "Bliss is ignorance". many people are in the constant state of mind; "i got my life running, I am ok." many don't care about the larger picture, like global warming.
I have an avid interest in Science, but little actual training. I approach most of what I read with skeptism and try to read both sides of any issue.
Now from this poor schlubs viewpoint, it may be that without human intervention, the earth may be heating up as it has many times before, over many millenium. I do believe that this time, Man is souring the pot.
Like a truck, crashing through a guard rail on a bridge. The driver gets out and sees the truck in perfect balance, until a couple of birds land on the hood and tip it over the edge. The truck weighs tons, the birds a couple of pounds. What could a couple of pounds matter, BUT, the truck is still in the river.
I believe you have to be blind not to see what is going on around you.
It's me again.
Bobbrug
Long Island NY
Anonymous of August 17th:
When you say: "how can we create so much destruction in such a little amount of time?" what exactly are you talking about???
Frank
Minneapolis
Post a Comment