|
Mother Earth Is Dying
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Hami |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3411053.stm
It makes me so sad to read articles liek this one. To know that we have the technology to change our ways, but governments are too concerned about money and debt owing, to do anything dradtic to what really matters. The Industry, Mining, and Gross Pollution that's killing us slowly, but in the earth's eyes, it's only the blink of an eye. :( :nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| Resnick |
| well, in theory we're all dead when anything really bad happens...i mean come on |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| Governments will only start caring when it will be too late. Our beautiful planet is just getting worse by the day ... when will we all start to contribute to its improvement, like by stopping littering, cutting down on pollution and emissions, as well as many other enviromental concerns ... like the fact that there are only 20% of fish left in our oceans from what it was just 200 years ago ... |
|
|
| Hami |
a perfect example, our grand banks are far from grand now.:(
I would have loved to see it like in the heritage canada film |
|
|
| raaven |
we as human beings are stupid. all of us.
we are increasing our life spans with our technology and medical advances but we're shortening the life of our planet in the process. so we're living longer and our planet is dying quicker. kinda funny no? |
|
|
| TECHno addict |
| quote: | Originally posted by raaven
we as human beings are stupid. all of us.
we are increasing our life spans with our technology and medical advances but we're shortening the life of our planet in the process. so we're living longer and our planet is dying quicker. kinda funny no? |
Its simple really.....we give a about us, and the time that we are on earth but beyond that, we dont give two s. The technology and medical advances have made our lives in the present more fulfilling and unless you believe in reincarnation or care about the well being of your sons sons son then we'll continue to do so. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
As I recall, this "theory" about melting the ice caps due to carbon gas emissions and global warming was debunked several years ago and proven to be iffy at best. Unless I've missed something:
(a) There is no statistical evidence that the increase in carbon gas was caused by humans. There may appear to be a correlation, but on such a short timeslice of the earth's full timeline, it could very well be coincidence.
(b) "Greenhouse emissions" are not necessarily linked to an increase in overall temperature.
(c) No evidence exists to show that "global warming" would actually be a bad thing, since the temperature has fluctuated quite a bit over the ages here and the "warm" periods were when more creatures survived.
I think that the government is largely going by this when they choose not to do anything. When something gets proven as doing real damage to the environment, like CFCs or pesticides, they get banned. However, the government is not going to act on a whim and start shoving laws in our face that restrict our rights on the grounds of "saving mother earth." |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
What pisses me off is that our society demands a certain standard of life. When this "standard" is delivered to us, everyone has to complain about the cost/sacrifices. Our lifestyles come at a price.
Who here would take public transportation / bike over driving their own car only to preserve the environment. Very few.
Also, another thing to consider, we have only been capturing climate data for the last hundred or so years. What if there is this climate cycle that the earth goes through. Like the iceage that wiped out all the dinosaurs. Who's to say this isnt mother natures doing. Many scientists believe this. IMO climate change, green house effect, is just a strategical tactic used by politicians and environmentalists to scare us into being more evironmentally conscience people (which we should be). |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
As I recall, this "theory" about melting the ice caps due to carbon gas emissions and global warming was debunked several years ago and proven to be iffy at best. Unless I've missed something:
(a) There is no statistical evidence that the increase in carbon gas was caused by humans. There may appear to be a correlation, but on such a short timeslice of the earth's full timeline, it could very well be coincidence.
(b) "Greenhouse emissions" are not necessarily linked to an increase in overall temperature.
(c) No evidence exists to show that "global warming" would actually be a bad thing, since the temperature has fluctuated quite a bit over the ages here and the "warm" periods were when more creatures survived.
I think that the government is largely going by this when they choose not to do anything. When something gets proven as doing real damage to the environment, like CFCs or pesticides, they get banned. However, the government is not going to act on a whim and start shoving laws in our face that restrict our rights on the grounds of "saving mother earth." |
I worked for climate change canada on educating the public about climate change this summer.
(a) i think this one speaks for itself. If youre saying that we're not releasing carbon gas emissions into the air.. thats ludicrous. Think about all the appliances, vehicles and factories that release this kind of stuff into the air. They brought in a meteorologist to train us and he showed us a timeline of SO2 and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 470000 years or something from icecore samples.. we're at double the second highest peak of concentration right now
(b)Do you know why they have greenhouses? Im sure there's no solid evidence that the greenhouse gases are having an irreversible change to temperature, but you have to admit, whether large or small.. there has to be a change in temperature
(c)well it depends on what you mean by bad i guess.. i mean every one of the prehistoric eras have given rise to new species and have killed off ones that couldnt adapt.. on a massive scale.
Many governments choose not to react becasue it costs money. Money is the name of the game. Russia's dilemma right now to sign the Kyoto protocol stems from the fact that the US and australia pulled out. These 2 countries were going to be major purchasers of pollution credits from Russia. Their pollution credits were valued at over $15 billion dollars. Now, theyre worth something over a billion.. supply and demand. Why do you think the US pulled out anyway? WHen their top environmental advisors went ape ? Although there is no truly damning evidence that this whole greenhouse effect thing is changing the way we live, isnt it better to be safe than sorry? We should cutback anyway because our cities are covered in smog and more and more children contract asthma each year. As for rights and freedoms.. isnt there some kind of clause that says you can exercise your rights and freedoms as long as it does not infring on others'?
Anyway, this rant is not personal Diginut.. but you bring up the main points against the whole global warming thing so i figured i'd use your message as a template. Nothing personal. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
No offense taken, dude, but you've really presented no solid evidence either.
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
(a) i think this one speaks for itself. If youre saying that we're not releasing carbon gas emissions into the air.. thats ludicrous. Think about all the appliances, vehicles and factories that release this kind of stuff into the air. They brought in a meteorologist to train us and he showed us a timeline of SO2 and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for the last 470000 years or something from icecore samples.. we're at double the second highest peak of concentration right now |
Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but how does ice give any clue as to how much carbon was in the atmosphere? And even if you could explain that, via rainfall/snowfall or some such thing, doesn't that still imply that the only data we have for carbon emissions would be during cold periods when ice actually forms, thereby essentially excluding all the warm periods in earth's history from the sample, which, by your logic in (b), would undoubtedly be the same periods when there is the most atmospheric carbon?
Of course we're releasing carbon gas into the air, but that doesn't mean it's actually having any significant effect. We're releasing carbon gas into the air by breathing, too. Should we stop doing that?
| quote: | | (b)Do you know why they have greenhouses? Im sure there's no solid evidence that the greenhouse gases are having an irreversible change to temperature, but you have to admit, whether large or small.. there has to be a change in temperature |
We're talking about a large amount of carbon in a very small space - there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we actually have that much carbon trapped in the atmosphere. And if we did, then it would definitely bias your sample as stated in (a).
| quote: | | (c)well it depends on what you mean by bad i guess.. i mean every one of the prehistoric eras have given rise to new species and have killed off ones that couldnt adapt.. on a massive scale. |
That really has to do with evolution more than anything else. In the sense of climate, warm periods were when the animal kingdom thrived, and ice ages were the times when the largest numbers were killed off. We humans would likely have been killed off as well if we hadn't figured out how to start fires.
| quote: | | Many governments choose not to react becasue it costs money. Money is the name of the game. |
They choose not to react because it costs money and there's no evidence of any real danger, or evidence that spending money would actually bring about any benefit. What you're essentially saying is that they should buy "lucky charms" - preventative measures for bad things that they're not even sure will happen. Of course they're not going to spend on that.
| quote: | | Although there is no truly damning evidence that this whole greenhouse effect thing is changing the way we live, isnt it better to be safe than sorry? |
No, see above.
| quote: | | We should cutback anyway because our cities are covered in smog and more and more children contract asthma each year. |
Smog comes from ozone, not carbon emissions. Scientists are still not sure exactly how the ozone gets down here and what caused the hole in the ozone layer. It might have been related to CFCs, which have already been banned.
| quote: | | As for rights and freedoms.. isnt there some kind of clause that says you can exercise your rights and freedoms as long as it does not infring on others'? |
Hahahahahaha, that's a good one. I agree with you, people's rights should be limited so as not to impose on others, but 99% of the Canadian/U.S. population seems to think that their rights are universal, as has been shown in numerous other debates on TA alone. So many people and groups have already been given "rights" that infringe on others - good luck trying to take away someone else's rights when they're not even sure whether they're doing anything wrong.
To summarize: working for a distributor of propaganda does not excuse you from questioning the evidence. :p
|
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No offense taken, dude, but you've really presented no solid evidence either.
Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but how does ice give any clue as to how much carbon was in the atmosphere? And even if you could explain that, via rainfall/snowfall or some such thing, doesn't that still imply that the only data we have for carbon emissions would be during cold periods when ice actually forms, thereby essentially excluding all the warm periods in earth's history from the sample, which, by your logic in (b), would undoubtedly be the same periods when there is the most atmospheric carbon?
Of course we're releasing carbon gas into the air, but that doesn't mean it's actually having any significant effect. We're releasing carbon gas into the air by breathing, too. Should we stop doing that?
We're talking about a large amount of carbon in a very small space - there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that we actually have that much carbon trapped in the atmosphere. And if we did, then it would definitely bias your sample as stated in (a).
That really has to do with evolution more than anything else. In the sense of climate, warm periods were when the animal kingdom thrived, and ice ages were the times when the largest numbers were killed off. We humans would likely have been killed off as well if we hadn't figured out how to start fires.
They choose not to react because it costs money and there's no evidence of any real danger, or evidence that spending money would actually bring about any benefit. What you're essentially saying is that they should buy "lucky charms" - preventative measures for bad things that they're not even sure will happen. Of course they're not going to spend on that.
No, see above.
Smog comes from ozone, not carbon emissions. Scientists are still not sure exactly how the ozone gets down here and what caused the hole in the ozone layer. It might have been related to CFCs, which have already been banned.
Hahahahahaha, that's a good one. I agree with you, people's rights should be limited so as not to impose on others, but 99% of the Canadian/U.S. population seems to think that their rights are universal, as has been shown in numerous other debates on TA alone. So many people and groups have already been given "rights" that infringe on others - good luck trying to take away someone else's rights when they're not even sure whether they're doing anything wrong.
To summarize: working for a distributor of propaganda does not excuse you from questioning the evidence. :p
|
bah so hard to figure out a way to quote..
So i'll just address it in one huge long paragraph.
ice core samples are taken from the poles.. where snowfall occurs no matter if its a warm age or cold age. poles melt at the sides where they meet the oceans.. for reasons we both know. So given that you're not taking ice core samples from where ice is constantly melting and freezing.. (which im sure scientists really are not that stupid).. you should have a pretty accurate chronological progression of ice samples. When ice is created.. its not pure ice.. it traps some of the atmosphere's gas inside.. thereby locking it away.. As you know.. gases mix really easily so you get a global concentration of gases in that ice. That should explain your doubts one ice core samples.
No, we shouldn't stop breathing. actually maybe some people.. but thats beside the point. I think the concern from the environmental community is that we're producing more carbon dioxide than photosynthetic plants can process.. thus causing a rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide.
The Earth and the greenhouse are on different scales obviously.. but the fact is concentration of greenhouse gases is increasing. <-- fact.
So assuming that the ratio of greenhouse gases and temperature is linear (its probably more exponential, but for the sake of simplicity) there has to be a change in temperature as LITTLE as you could possibly argue it to be.
True.. warmer climates have been when the organisms have thrived.. but dont you think there's also an upper bound to the temperature? I'll refer you to heatwave 2003 in Europe. If you say that that was a phenomenon that will happen very rarely. I will agree. But the point is if temperatures rise ... and if they rise steadily.. evenutally you could hit that point.
Preventative measures are necessary in this case. IF by the time people realize that there IS global warming, if there is at all, it will be too late. This isnt one of those things where if you shut down the factory, the pollution will disappear.
Actually scientists have figure out how ozone is produced via pollution. http://science.howstuffworks.com/ozone-pollution1.htm
I was not saying ozone comes from carbon emissions. But they come hand in hand. Combustion produces all of these gases. My logic is that these vehicles and factories have already been PROVEN to have negative effects in OTHER aspects of society... so why dont they cut down? Are they infringing on other peoples' rights and freedoms? only time will tell.
As for not questioning.. well.. I approached my job and training with as much skepticism as you had.. I'm by no means an environmentalist.. but always look at both sides of the coin and weigh them. If you play poker.. think of implied odds.. kinda like that. |
|
|
|
|
