Climate change falsehood

[troy2000]

How is it more destructive than ants travelling and eating everything on their path?

It's a matter of scale.... the ants are chewing up a tiny portion of their environment at a time. And by they come through an area again, it will have had time to regenerate.

 

[bntii]

While there are exceptions, generally we think of the animals in the 'natural' environment as being participants in creating a ecosystem. Modern humans by in large are destructive to these systems and this disruption puts the system at risk and lowers its ability to support our needs and those of the other organisms which are sustained there.

Nature is a bloody place- whole generations of animals can be wiped out if the carrying capacity of the environment is exceeded in any given local or if conditions change.
New animals on the scene can whipe out entire species if inter species balances favor one organism over another.

One of the miracles of the human experiment is the ability to reason and judge the effect of our actions.

Abandoning that which 'makes us human' by viewing the natural environment as a carte blanche to proceed without reason or judgement is a loss to my mind of our greatest potential, and a violation of our intrinsic responsibility as thinking organisms.


Shall we be the fruit fly which sh!ts on its food and grows explosively till death of all when the food is gone, or the industrious ant which increases the carrying capacity of its environment by growing carefully tended fields of plants to augment its food for a population sited in well constructed homes with sewage workers to remove waste and storage of water and food surpluses standing by.

Our ability to reason allows us a choice of the path we take, and our judgement permits a assessment of probable success if we chose to emulate nature.
Why throw away our greatest asset?

 

[hoytedow]

If Man is incapable of making decisions for his own life, he certainly is incapable of making decisions for the lives of others.

 

[bntii]

As an adult, I continually make decisions which effect my own life and that of those around me.
It is a important part of being a active participant in society and by some measure, our ability to effect others by our decisions is a privilege granted to us by our peers.

Society is continually "making decisions for the lives of others".
It is a undeniable aspect of our communal structure.

How decisions are reached is a point of great interest in society.

Defenders of any point of view might wield "free will", or "free markets" as a sanction of action where the universal point is that decisions are being made under any construct which are equally influential in effecting the lives of others.

 

[hoytedow]

The problem comes in when one group thinks itself superior in its decision making ability and therefore its superiority in the human race. When a flaw is found in that theory wherein the argument won't hold up to scrutiny, the matter isn't argued on its merits but, rather, the messenger of the contrary argument is trashed and personally destroyed so his message will not be heard.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

The problem comes in when one group thinks itself superior in its decision making ability and therefore its superiority in the human race. When a flaw is found in that theory wherein the argument won't hold up to scrutiny, the matter isn't argued on its merits but, rather, the messenger of the contrary argument is trashed and personally destroyed so his message will not be heard.

Do US Media Coddle Climate Change Skeptics?

One reason clean energy might face such a grinding struggle for policy support in the United States is the degree to which climate-change skepticism and denial is part of the discussion – a reality reflected in a new study that shows major U.S. media have been far more willing to include voices that deny the Earth’s climate is warming and oppose robust action to slow warming...

Number of articles containing skeptical voices as a percentage of the total number of articles covering climate change or global warming, 2009–10. (image via Environmental Research Letters)

The researchers also found a difference in the type of skepticism seen in the U.S. and the other countries.

Outright denial that temperatures are rising, noted in blue on the graph, is found almost exclusively in the United States. (image via Environmental Research Letters)

 

[gonzo]

Other species also establish their dominance by killing their opponents. It is not particular to Homo Sapiens.

 

[hoytedow]

Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Frosty]

As barbaric as it may seem its how we gain strength and survive . It also how we got here.

 

[hoytedow]

Career advice. Don't be a messenger.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

BBC | Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark

Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.

The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.

The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago - before modern humans existed.

Scientists say the climate back then was also considerably warmer than it is today.

Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades...

 

[Petros]

looks like CO2 has been far above 400 ppm for most of the earths history. the statement that it went above 400ppm for the first time is not exactly true. And not sure it means anything unless it is measure all over the glob at that level. Hawaii is in a tropical climate zone.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

looks like CO2 has been far above 400 ppm for most of the earths history. the statement that it went above 400ppm for the first time is not exactly true. And not sure it means anything unless it is measure all over the glob at that level. Hawaii is in a tropical climate zone.

A little bit of helpful advice. When you see an ellipses (...) within what I'm quoting, that means that not all of the article has been quoted. So before you smear egg all over your face you should read the whole article. If you had done so you would have read that:

..."Mauna Loa and the South Pole observatory are iconic sites as they have been taking CO2 measurements in real time since 1958. Last year, for the first time, all Arctic sites reached 400ppm... [note ellipses]

And Dr Butler added: "Probably next year, or the year after that, the average yearly reading will pass 400pm.

"A couple of years after that, the South Pole will have readings of 400ppm, and in eight to nine years we will probably have seen the last CO2 reading under 400ppm."

To determine CO2 levels before the introduction of modern stations, scientists must use so-called proxy measurements.

These include studying the bubbles of ancient air trapped in Antarctic ice.

One of these can be used to describe CO2 levels over the past 800,000 years. It suggests that CO2 held steady over this longer period at between 200ppm and 300ppm...[note ellipses]

Since CO2 levels are anticipated to soon be over 400ppm over the whole globe, can we assume that you will now take anthropogenic global warming seriously?

 

[Petros]

so, in the Arctic is has reached 400ppm, but it has not happened over the rest of the globe yet, but that he expects it to happen in the future. We will have to wait and see.

 

[ImaginaryNumber]

so, in the Arctic is has reached 400ppm, but it has not happened over the rest of the globe yet, but that he expects it to happen in the future. We will have to wait and see.

Yes, of course; "wait and see". As the article said there is nothing special about 400ppm. We're already way above historically-comfortable levels of CO2, but we're advised that the prudent course of action is "wait and see". That's what the frog said who was in the slowly-heated pot of water. Since we're acting as far-sighted as that stupid frog, maybe we deserve what happened to the frog.