Earth is a tough mother.

?Some are concerned and reasonable, others and are not so reasonable and more concerned about their own agenda than their fellow man.?

I will ask you once again: what is this amorphous agenda you speak of?

---

?[i]There is quite a bit of research out there on CO2, however there is no proof for global warming. I used the word "unfounded" to draw your attention to this fact.[/i]?

There is proof. [face_plain] In my last two posts, I have provided facts and sources that back this up as reality. (You, on the other hand, have provided this [b]thread[/b] with no proof of your claims.)

Here are some quotations from the [link=http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/faq/fundamentals.html]United States Environmental Protection Agency[/link]:

[i]Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a "discernible human influence" on climate.[/i]

[b]What are the most important greenhouse gases?
Where are they coming from?[/b]

[i]Many greenhouse gases occur naturally, but human activities are adding gases to the natural mix at an unprecedented rate. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas; it occurs naturally and makes up about two thirds of the natural greenhouse effect. Fuel burning and other human activities, however, are adding large amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere ? the most important ones being carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Since pre-industrial times atmospheric concentrations of CO2, CH4 and N2O have climbed by over 31%, 151% and 17%, respectively. Scientists have confirmed this is primarily due to human activity. Burning coal, oil and gas, and cutting down forests are largely responsible.[/i]
[hr]
[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: Like your first post in this thread, this statement makes little sense. I am a Roman Catholic and I personally find this statement of yours to be both offensive and prejudicial in nature; thus, I ask that you please retract it.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]I do not mean to demean Catholics in anyway. I have several friends who are Catholic (which is where I get my jadedness towards their rules via them) My point was that even natural functions of life could be considered an envirnmental "sin". In fact nearly everything I enjoy about life, I'm told to be ashamed of by environmentalists. Hopefully you do not deem this offensive, because I have no problems with Catholics or the relgion, but it's rules aren't for me (which is why I made the comparison to evironmentalism)[/i]?

I will ask you one time (then I?m going to a mod), I, as a [b]Roman Catholic[/b], find your statement to be both offensive and prejudicial in nature; thus, I ask that you please retract it. [face_plain] I?m happy that you have Catholic friends, but that does not give you a licence (or justification) to bandy around religious slurs on a public and family forum that are deemed to be offensive by some its members, who happen to belong to the religion in question. [face_plain]
[hr]
?[i]My point is dramatic climate changes happen with or without pollution. Meaning
1. any climate changes cannot be linked to pollution. It is all circumstancial.[/i]?

Again, [b]Global Warming[/b] is currently occurring; it has been linked to human activities (E.g.: pollution in the form of emitted greenhouse gases ? CO2 included). I have provided facts and sources to back up my position. You, once again, have offered none of these except you unsubstantiated heresay and personal opinion.
[hr]
?[i]Not the earth, but life. When an abundance of natural resources appear such as CO2, life will take advantage of it. That is what I was refering to.[/i]?

Both the earth and life will adapt; but at a huge loss of life if greenhouse gases (like CO2) continue to be emitted at an increasing level (as is the trend now). Plain and simple. [face_plain] Thus, are you comfortable with the possibility that you, or your friends and family members may be future victims? [face_confused]
[hr]
?[i]What's to back up

 

"There is quite a bit of research out there on CO2, however there is no proof for global warming. I used the word "unfounded" to draw your attention to this fact. At some point they may find the proof, but now it is only a theory made popular by interest groups."
-> Look at a map of Africa made in the 1850s. Then look at the projections we've made scientifically to determine where the Sahara stopped in 1 AD. Look where the Sahara stops in 2002 AD. You'll be surprised to see the desert hasn't been growing at the same pace at all before and after industrialization started.

 

I will ask you once again: what is this amorphous agenda you speak of?
Politcal power, money, status, ego; generalized agendas of man. Is it coincidence that those leading this crusade gained all these things? Hmmm

There is proof. In my last two posts, I have provided facts and sources that back this up as reality. (You, on the other hand, have provided this thread with no proof of your claims.)

What do you want proof of? That the earths climate changes on it's own? I didn't think that was neccessary. As for your sources "proof", it's not a scientific fact that there's a direct corelation. Many different factors affect climate, and to say with an certainty to the contrary would not be scientific.

I will ask you one time (then I?m going to a mod), I, as a Roman Catholic, find your statement to be both offensive and prejudicial in nature; thus, I ask that you please retract it. I?m happy that you have Catholic friends, but that does not give you a licence (or justification) to bandy around religious slurs on a public and family forum that are deemed to be offensive by some its members who belong to the religion in question.

I'll PM you on this.

Again, Global Warming is currently occurring; it has been linked to human activities (E.g.: pollution in the form of emitted greenhouse gases ? CO2 included). I have provided facts and sources to back up my position. You, once again, have offered none of these except you unsubstantiated heresay and personal opinion.

What's to offer up?
Climate changes occur and are not a constant.-Commonly agreed fact, not heresay or opinion

Scientific principals require an independant variable-Commonly agreed fact

Temperature of the earth does not fit this requirement because it is not constant or predictable- Logical reasoning.

So this would mean that it's circumstancial. It could be pollution or it could just be the earth.

The unsubstantiated heresay that you have put forward on this thread.
If you believe something to be heresay (ie dynamic climate etc), please place it to my attention and I will back that specific item up. Otherwise I believe we agree on certain facts.

Both the earth and life will adapt; but at a huge loss of life if greenhouse gases (like CO2) continue to be emitted at an increasing level (as is the trend now). Plain and simple. Thus, are you comfortable with the possibility that you, or your friends and family members may be future victims

There's a good chance that they're right. Maybe not to the extent but left unchecked, sure it could happen, however trends in society and technology have lead to a decrease in pollutants, and will continue to do so. Even without restrictive or near punative treaties.

 

"Climate changes occur and are not a constant.-Commonly agreed fact, not heresay or opinion"
=> Nothing to add there.

"Scientific principals require an independant variable-Commonly agreed fact"
=> Since there are not really such things as really independant variables, be they commonly agreed facts or not ; if you've gone through some tough science courses, you know we're always approximating and simplifying things and reducing them to solvable systems, while in truth everything is tightly interwoven and quite often has at least a small measure of influence over other phenomenons. A real-life based independant variable and not a mathematical approximated model which is the very commonly agreed fact, but is not independant as the establishment of that commonly agreed fact requires the scientific community to agree on a subjective, abstract, imperfect model - that is by the way almost never independant, since it almost always involves mathematical relations between a set of variables ; change one, and you'll change at least another. The only independant variables that we can claim to have approximated well enough are universally accepted constants, and of themselves they can't describe a single phenomenon, no matter how simple it is.
You'll probably conclude, if you agree with the above that you're basing yourself on a wrong premise to get your result (if you do not agree, that's a mixed philosophical and scientific debate I'd enjoy to have, but it'd rather be done in another thread or via PMs, since it'd be way off-topic).

"Temperature of the earth does not fit this requirement because it is not constant or predictable- Logical reasoning."
=> Then again, little to say save for the fact that if you agree with what I said above, you'll conclude that your logic has been flawed by a wrong hypothesis.

"Both the earth and life will adapt; but at a huge loss of life if greenhouse gases (like CO2) continue to be emitted at an increasing level (as is the trend now). Plain and simple."
=> Even plainer and simpler is the fact that no matter what we do know, a huge loss of life WILL occur ; it's more a question of "when" than a question of "how", and "when" is quite akin to "already". I do agree that an ever-increasing level of greenhouse gas emissions won't better that particular trend, but it won't take just a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to invert the trend, since it's already set on a global warming (at a MUCH slower pace than it is thanks to human tampering ; if any of you have doubts, they'd be interested to retrieve data on the Antarctic studies of ice formations and the history of our planet's ecology that spawns from these studies).

I do have to say that I wonder which is the worst alternative - imagining that you can interact without your environment carelessly and not get paid back for it, or imagining you actually could do something to stop environment from paying you back when time is due. The former forget that their great-great-great-grand-children could have a go at living too, if they spared the effort, and the latter forget that no matter the effort, mankind will always be a small parenthesis in our Universe's history, as their own lives are small parentheses in the history of mankind.

 

of course there's no such thing as an independant variable in the real world. Observations cannot be made without your presence affecting the end result, however I think most would agree that for an acceptable theory to hold up it should be based off of something a little more predictable than the weather.

 

It's predictable when you come down to it. What we're doing is not changing the trend, that I'll grant you. But we are accelerating it with massive emissions of gases. I'll try to dig up some data on the studies of those bubbles of air imprisoned in Antarctic ice (where it's hard to tamper with atmosphere quality on a local level, you'll probably agree), they do show that we have carbon dioxin and methane levels that were never reached before, and never got anywhere near them before (in relative scales, of course ; it takes as little as an overall change of 5% more or less greenhous gas concentration in atmosphere as a whole to change the temperatures by several Kelvin degrees and wreck the climate as well).

Note - read the 'before's above as a few hundred thousand years in the past ; I don't know whether they've dug deeper since or if they've reached the bottom yet, but there's certainly a limit on how far we can get, though it doesn't really change much in terms of study of human influence, we got before the estimated times our ancestors started building fires).

EDIT - Just noticed the implications of my updated sig' when I debate...
Oh, well... It's not that much of a surprise

 

Personally, if you ask me... I think "dominion" is the lie told by the devil... and his greatest trick was in convincing us that it was god who said it.

Is this an obsession? No one save you appears to be fixated on this "dominion" bit.

But that's another story... Pretending that god or the devil is the one we should blame for our own stupidity and self-destruction is a pretty clever scheme, if you ask me... and it doesn't surprise me that the people who helped give birth to commerce and agriculture in the western world would have thought up such a load of crap.

Quit whining. You don't like agriculture and commerce? Want to go back to pre-industrialist times where we didn't even awknowledge our own animalistic consumption habits and were as dogmatic as you complain about? That sir, was the opinion of Theodore Kaczynski. Anti-humanist post-modern fanaticism is the same animal as Christian human chauvenism. Both fanatical. Perhaps someone would actually bother to debate with you on your peculiar fixation on this "dominion from God" thing.

If god told me such a load of crap about man being the be-all, end-all of this earth... much less the universe, I'd ask him why then there are millions of forces in this universe greater than man, acting upon our little speck of an earth which god seems to care so little for... and then you have this moron the devil, whom god was stupid enough to let wreak havoc and also seems to have as much power as god, or more. Now that kind of makes me wonder why I should pay any attention to a self-loving, vain and egomaniacal shmuck who created man simply out of the interest of creating a human pinata of sorts to be whacked about by every other thing in this universe. Even a swarm of locusts can wipe us out.

Humans can't be whiped out be single locust swarms. Human beings are the current pinacle of survival of the fittest. "From a certain point of view" all of evolution is justified by the creation of the sapient organism known as Homo sapiens. Not that we should obliterate our homeworld, but all organisms outclass and drive other organisms into extinction. We have an unfair advantage in "memetic" evolution (from Richard Dawkins' term "meme") and should attempt to preserve the global biosphre as much as possible, but there will of course be some casualities until we escape into space, live there and on colonies and turn Earth in a park. But there will be casualities. I have complete faith that humankind will overcome difficulties and the biosphere will someday return to normal when we leave the planet.

Additionally, you hold human beings as no better then any other animals. Therefore, our biospheric tampering is completely natural and we should drain this rock as serves our needs best. Human sentience gives us the responsibility to preserve the biosphere. Without it, we're mere rats and not responsible or accountable for our actions by definition.

Thanks for nothin', god. You selfish shmuck. I'll learn moderation... even if you haven't.

Moderation, dear sir, is not something you've displayed. And believe "shmuck" refers to a specific sexual organ and such explicit description is not good board behavior.

 

Man is defintitely not "The Fittest" on this planet. Actually, left to his own devices, man is relatively weak.

Take a Polar Bear, and then take an average human adult. Drop them both in the north pole...

Bear eats man, or man dies due to exposure.

Because of technology, humans were able to assert themselves as the dominant species on this planet. Well...technology and weapons...well...mostly weapons.

 

Well our brains let us develop memetically and by extension: technology. Our brains and sentience ARE an evolutionary product. Therefore we're evolutionarily more advanced then the rest of the terrestrial biomass. Our physical strength is irrelevent. Bacteria can kill easily the most physically powerful creatures.

 

tenorjedi?s remarks in regards to the agendas of pro-Environmental NGOs:

tenorjedi: Politcal power, money, status, ego; generalized agendas of man. Is it coincidence that those leading this crusade gained all these things? Hmmm

Okay, let?s go through this one by one:

1. Political power: There?s a reason why they?re called pro-Environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) ? it is impossible for them to gain direct political power.

2. Money: There?s not a lot of money that pro-Environmental NGOs can obtain from expressing their views. The only sources of revenue for them, that come to mind, are membership fees, donations, etc. (much of these meagre revenues go to permanent staff, research and publication materials.

In contrast, big business/the energy industry, which tend to run anti-Environmental NGOs (as disinformation organizations) have a direct and vested interest: maintaining high profit margins from the status quo. Case in point, the Greening Earth Soceity, which is a front-organization founded and almost exclusively funded by the Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) - a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states, which uses the (GES) to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Thus, there is a big-time difference between pro-Environmental NGOs and anti-Environmental NGOs, and the essential reason why I tend to take the word of the former (which is not without its own bias - every source is biased to degree) over that of the spurious latter any day.

3. Status: Please define.

4. Ego: Right?..so all the time and effort that pro-Environmental NGOs put in just to get their message out merely illustrates their desire to enlarge their egos. Please. Try again.

---

?[i]What do you want proof of? That the earths climate changes on it's own? I didn't think that was neccessary. As for your sources "proof", it's not a scientific fact that there's a direct corelation.[/i]?

I want proof that the current [b]Global Warming[/b] trend is not the result of human activities, which is what you appear to be arguing. [face_plain]

Now, the vast majority of scientists across the globe have formed the consensus opinion that the current [b]Global Warming[/b] trend can be directly correlated to human activities. To prove this once again, here is a quotation from a government website of my country, Canada: [link=http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/english/actions/what_are/canadascontribution/whatweknow.html]Canada?s Contribution to Addressing Climate Change ? What We Know[/link].

[b]Science[/b]

The international community has concluded that there is compelling scientific evidence of climate change. More than a decade ago, the United Nations Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to assess scientific research on climate change, including its impacts and response measures.

The IPCC has recently completed its Third Assessment. This involved more than 1,000 scientists and scholars from a wide range of disciplines and countries. The major conclusions have been endorsed by 17 national scientific academies around the world and in a letter signed by more than 100 Nobel laureates. There are three key findings:

The first is that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere. Data collected from polar ice cores, for example, show that concentrations of CO2 had been stable at about 280 parts per million by volume for the 10,000 years between the last ice age and the start of the 19th century. The present concentration has not been exceeded during the past 420,000 years and likely not during the past 20 million years.

However, CO2 concentrations have now increased by about 30 per cent. If this trend continues, by the end of the century the concentration of CO2 in o

 

So this would mean that it's circumstancial. It could be pollution or it could just be the earth.

Problem with your argument. If you're saying we should wait and see, what happens if we wait too long, pray tell..? It COULD be us, and surely we'd be wiser to ACT on the possibility..?

 

This is quoted from another source Another Media Site - oh, might I point out that you can't grumble this is a media reference, so was your own.

Certainly something is heating the globe. The century's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1983, seven of those in this decade. A new National Science Foundation study based on natural records such as tree rings, ice-cores and corals finds the last decade of the millennium has been its hottest. Another study by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) chief paleoclimatologist Jonathan Overpeck, which goes back to 800 AD, confirms the 20th century is the hottest of the past 12. "There is no period that we can recognize in the last 1,200 years that was as warm on a global basis," Overpeck said. "That makes what we're now seeing more unusual, and more difficult to explain without turning to a 'greenhouse gas' mechanism."

And 1998 was by far the hottest year of the millennium, breaking a record set just in 1997. Every one of the 18 months leading up to October 1998 was the warmest on record, a feat so statistically improbable that John Topping, president of the Climate Institute, likens the odds to that of bowling 18 consecutive 300 games.

Temperatures in 1998 surged faster than ever recorded, spiking one-quarter degree Fahrenheit (deg F) over 1997 and a full degree above the long-term average. Spread across the globe that represents a tremendous amount of energy.

"This number's amazing," said climatologist Philip Jones of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the world's leading climate research centers. "The rapid warming of the past 25 years undercuts the argument of greenhouse skeptics who have maintained that most of the global warming occurred early this century while greenhouse gases were increasing more slowly," NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James E. Hansen said. "In fact, the fastest warming is occurring just when it is expected."

The upper atmosphere is cooling rapidly at the same time as Earth's surface is getting hotter - a "fingerprint" pattern of human-caused global warming. A natural warming due to the changing brightness of the sun warms both the lower and upper atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, trap heat down low, reducing the outflow of warmth to the upper atmosphere.

Another argument of the skeptics fell in 1998. While surface and balloon instruments show warming in the lower atmosphere, satellite readings had been indicating a slight cooling. A new study found that atmospheric drag pulled satellites into lower orbits since their launch, distorting readings. Corrected satellite data show warming consistent with other measurements.

"The supposed tropospheric cooling derived from satellites was the strongest argument of the greenhouse skeptics," said study lead author Frank Wentz. "Now that we understand the orbit decay correction, there is an even stronger consensus that global warming is indeed a reality."

 

Political power: There?s a reason why they?re called pro-Environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) ? it is impossible for them to gain direct political power.

Yes but one does not need to hold office to have political power. Some of the most powerful and influencial people never held office. The NRA wield tremendous political power.

Money: There?s not a lot of money that pro-Environmental NGOs can obtain from expressing their views. The only sources of revenue for them, that come to mind, are membership fees, donations, etc. (much of these meagre revenues go to permanent staff, research and publication materials.

There's not alot of money? Are you kidding? Pro-Environmental groups recieve generous donations from private citizens who are concerned about the environment. If word got out that the environment wasn't in fact on the brink of disaster; the funding goes out the window. Which is why ever since I can remember the earth has always been near the brink of disaster. So the question is, have we had 1 foot in the grave for 2 decades now or are they at least somewhat overstating the situation for monetary gain.

If you believe oil lobbiests are understating the problem then why are environmental lobbiests aren't overstating it?

Status: Please define
-Fame, Notariety social standing etc

Ego: Right?..so all the time and effort that pro-Environmental NGOs put in just to get their message out merely illustrates their desire to enlarge their egos. Please. Try again
- No it's never about being right is it? Nobody ever keeps debating things on the internet because they honestly believe they're going to make difference. It's all ego. You, me, BS it all we want, we hit that "post" button because we know we are right, and will not back down. Ego is always a factor when you're dealing with humans. To put pro-environmentalists on a pedistal and believe they are not subject to the same human flaws as you, I or the oil companies is just naive.

I want proof that the current Global Warming trend is not the result of human activities, which is what you appear to be arguing.

Odd because I want proof that it is human activities and not a dynamic climate. It's because no one knows for sure. I can't say it's not, you can't say it is. Which is why we both go round and round.

Okay? In one post, you want me to provide something that you recognize is impossible in another post. I don?t know, but it doesn?t sound like you know what you?re talking about

Obviously you don't. In a lab you can have an independant variable. In the real world independant variable theoritically do not exist. A persons presence alters the state of the environment. (IE observing animal behavior) So in real world science, nothing can be absolute, so you must use the most dependable item you can find, knowing that it is not 100% reliable. However taking that in mind, a dynamic climate is not suitable for an "independant" variable because it is not constant, it is too unreliable for an accurate measurement.

PSYS. Where do you get this garbage? ?Trends in society?? If anything the trends in society/the world indicate that the emission of greenhouse gases will dramatically increase. In my country alone, ?If no action were taken to address climate change, it is estimated that Canada's emissions in 2010 will be about 33 per cent greater than they were in 1990.? The world population is continuing to grow; most of this growth is occurring in Third World countries, many of which are beginning and have begun to industrialize and to burn fossil fuels and biomass for their energy needs - thus, increasing worldwide greenhouse emissions.

I'm talking about fuel efficency, cost effective pollution control etc. They're out there, and society will slowly accept them.




MASTER_OBI-DAN- This debate would be alot more productive without the laughing faces at replys, the "Where do you get this garbage", Please. Try again, I don?t know, but it d

 

Lord_Darth_Bob: My post was a direct response to tenorjedi's citing "dominion" as an appeal to authority to falsely justify human behavior in this regard. It is precisely because the concept of "dominion", in particular, pervades western culture so much that people, consciously or unconsciously, exercise "human authority" over the planet.

Before this belief was introduced to the west, tribal cultures and belief systems did not have any concept or interest in manifest destiny... not out of altruism, mind you. It just simply never occurred to them it was necessary to overproduce and overconsume. Agriculture and dominion go hand in hand... as it was the myth of man's "right" to dominion, conceived by agriculturalists, which helped justify the proliferation of agricultural states.

Therefore, I believe this self-replicating myth to be extremely relevant when discussing why it doesn't even occur to some people that much of what we have done to this planet was unnecessary and purely selfish (notice I did not say "wrong".).

 

D_snowdog you mistook what I said completely. I was not excusing mans behavior based on the fact that we're number one here. But that we are charged to take care of the earth, because we are the only sentient beings here.

 

But that we are charged to take care of the earth, because we are the only sentient beings here.

I understand that... but this is just another false assumption.

The earth has been here long before us, and it will be here just fine without our help. There are a number of false assumptions inherent in this belief, and here are only a few of them:

1. The earth needs our help.
2. It was in a state of disrepair before we came.
3. We've been "charged" to take care of earth.
4. There is a god.
5. God does not or prefers not to take care of earth on god's own omnipotence.
6. We are the only sentient beings here.


Seems kind of strange...

The planet was functioning for 4.6 billon years before we came along. So then god puts us here to take care of the planet... but instead we start destroying it. No other organisms before us have ever deliberately gone out of their way to create such imbalances in the biosphere for the sake of their own existence. It seems we were put here to clean up a mess we created. Is god really stupid enough to create a paradox? Or maybe he's just an egomaniacal jerk who created such a paradox just for his own amusement at the expense of our self-inflicted pain and suffering.

Oh, god, you really crack me up! You're killin' me here!

 

GOD IS IRRELEVANT HERE. Anyone who cites "God" for anything in this debate is entertaining a debate fallacy. However, as the only species capable of consciously choosing conservation in favor of run-away exploitation through our sentience, we are in a way "responsible" to make sure our development doesn't ruin the biosphere. As I said over PM. "Great power means great responsibility." I don't hold the opinion that we're charged by God to control ourselves. That's absurd and a fallacy on the part of those who endorse it.

 

Well since I never referenced to God I'm thouroughly entertained, but ya still don't understand. Maybe I'm just not saying it right, but I have not used God as an argument yet. I did say (para) "for whatever reason that we're here (God, Fate evolution etc)" but that's about as far as I went there tanto. Anyway it's a bit off subject either way

 

Who then "charged" us with this "responsbility"... if not ourselves?

As I mentioned to you in PM, if we are to be considered the most adaptable, most versatile, or even the most efficient survivors... How is it that we are being beaten to a bloody pulp on all three counts by a simple virus such as HIV?

We still haven't conquered the rhinovirus responsible for acute nasopharyngitis... otherwise known as the common cold.

We can't take care of ourselves, we're stupid enough to build houses in earthquake and typhoon/hurricane zones... and yet we think we're going to take care of this planet that kicks us around like a whiffle ball every chance it gets?

One asteroid a mere 1200km in diameter and *poof*... where's your special humans now?



P.S.: If I'm not mistaken, "dominion" is specifically Biblical in origin. (Genesis 1:28).

You will scarcely, if at all, find such a patently absurd (IMO), and biologically ignorant, construct extrapolated from in eastern mythological, religious or philosophical teachings. I also don't know too many Christians who ascribe to the literality of Biblical dogma.

Of course I don't blame the individuals who thought up such strange interpretations of the world thousands of years ago. After all, they thought epileptic seizures were possessions, the sun moved around the earth, and wanted to kill numerous individuals throughout history, including Anton van Leeuwenhoek and Galileo, for contradicting blind adherence to myth with scientific investigation. I just figure that, after a couple thousand years of expanding our knowledge base... we ought to know better than to assume man, the most unworthy of all creatures (so unworthy god kicked him out of eden... allegedly), would be granted "dominion" over the earth.

Maybe someone scribbled it in as a crude joke. God loves us, but hates us, but puts us in charge, knowing fully well that we'll screw up. Yeah, that's pretty damned hilarious.

As Hamlet said to Polonius, "Ay, thou art a fishmonger!"

 

This has nothing to do with being superior or the be all end all of existence, because we're not. I do believe that since we have sentience we have a responsiblity to take care of what we were given inherited or just out of dumb luck were stuck with. The responsibility is to ourselves and our decendants. But again this is really off of the subject here.

 

The earth is responsible for taking care of itself.

We are responsible for taking care of ourselves.

We're absolutely ignorant of nature if we can't see how long it's been taking care of itself without us.

I don't buy that we were put here to "shepherd" the earth.

If we were, what's the impetus, where's the evidence, and how have we fared in our "job"?

So far, if this was our purpose... I'd say we get an F. But I disagree that we were put here to "take care of" something that only we seem to be throwing into disarray. It's a complete paradox... because the earth was doing a lot better without us than with us.

More species have become extinct at a faster pace in a shorter period of time since our arrival than ever before in history. More pollution has been introduced in the last 100 years than ever before. More land has been devastated and more freshwater polluted because of us than without us.

If we are truly "special" and unique in any capacity at all... It's that we're here to clean up a mess that only we created.

This is so paradoxical, I don't even know where to begin... except perhaps to ask Doc Brown if he stole Plutonium from the Libyans again. Whoah... heavy, Doc.

"There's that word again... heavy. Is there some sort of problem with the earth's gravitational pull in the future?"

 

MASTER_OBI-DAN: Political power: There?s a reason why they?re called pro-Environmental NGOs (non-governmental organizations) ? it is impossible for them to gain direct political power.

tenorjedi: ?Yes but one does not need to hold office to have political power. Some of the most powerful and influencial people never held office. The NRA wield tremendous political power.?

Please note that I put the word ?direct? in bold letters for a reason, the NRA or any NGO does not have direct political power. Thus, political power is never an end (as you suggest) but a means to an end; this is a huge difference and dismisses your illogical argument on this point as such.

---

[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: 2. [b]Money[/b]: There?s not a lot of money that pro-Environmental NGOs can obtain from expressing their views. The only sources of revenue for them, that come to mind, are membership fees, donations, etc. (much of these meagre revenues go to permanent staff, research and publication materials.

In contrast, big business/the energy industry, which tend to run anti-Environmental NGOs (as disinformation organizations) have a direct and vested interest: maintaining high profit margins from the status quo. Case in point, the [b]Greening Earth Society[/b], which is a front-organization founded and almost exclusively funded by the [b]Western Fuels Assocation[/b] ([b]WFA[/b]) - a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states, which uses the ([b]GES[/b]) to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.

Thus, there is a big-time difference between pro-Environmental NGOs and anti-Environmental NGOs, and the essential reason why I tend to take the word of the former (which is not without its own bias - every source is biased to degree) over that of the spurious latter any day.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]There's not alot of money? Are you kidding? Pro-Environmental groups recieve generous donations from private citizens who are concerned about the environment.

If you believe oil lobbiests are understating the problem then why are environmental lobbiests aren't overstating it?[/i]?

Generous donations are [b]nothing[/b] in comparison to energy industry profits; if you can refute this, please do. I don?t doubt that there are some NGOs that overstate, but please note that I?ve only cited respected pro-Environmental NGOs like the [link=http://www.ucsusa.org/environment/0warming.html]Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA[/link] and the [link=http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/]David Suzuki Foundation[/link]. If you cannot provide me with proof that these are not highly respectable NGOs, then please stop talking trash and stop making unfounded accusations. [face_plain]
[hr]
[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]No it's never about being right is it? Nobody ever keeps debating things on the internet because they honestly believe they're going to make difference.[/i]?

This is why I?m here, because I want to debate, learn new perspectives from others and make a difference in whatever small way that I can. [face_wink]

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: ?[i]It's all ego?.me, BS it all we want, we hit that "post" button because we know we are right, and will not back down.[/i]?

If you?re posting in the [b]JC[/b] for the purposes of ?[i]BS[/i]? and your own ?[i]ego[/i],? then I truly feel sorry for you, [b]tenorjedi[/b].
[hr]
[b]MASTER_OBI-DAN[/b]: I want proof that the current Global Warming trend is not the result of human activities, which is what you appear to be arguing.

[b]tenorjedi[/b]: "[i]Odd because I want proof that it is human activities and not a dynamic climate.[/i]"

Have you read any of my posts or the sources that I took the time to provide for your convenience and benefit? They all prove that the current Global Warming trend is the result of human activities (75% - that?s a majority, clear and direct correlation) and not natural climate change. You have not directly refuted ev

 

What we basically have in this thread (which, incidentally, I find slightly appalling) are the following arguments;

1) Earth can take care of itself, our effects are irrelevant, do what we choose, it doesn't matter.

Congratulations. Perfect excuse for sitting back and doing nothing. I'm sorry, but that argument doesn't wash with me one iota. It is nothing more than an excuse for not being bothered to get off our backsides. We need to realise we ARE in a dynamic environment; ONE THAT IS EASILY INFLUENCED. I refer you to the Pinatubo Effect as an example, or 1816 as another; ideal examples can be seen in the devastation of microecosystems on the island of Hawai'i. (I'll be curious to see how many of those who've formed the opinion 'Earth is dynamic' recognise the examples I'm stating or know them in detail. Then again, they'll probably be ignored.)
Climatological evidence indicates that the Earth is easily influenced. Do you know there's a direct link between wind-storms in Edinburgh and volcanic eruptions in Indonesia? Incredible, isn't it! The butterfly effect; the flapping of a butterfly's wings in England could be the cause of the hurricane that strikes Hawai'i... *chuckles* A cliched statement, but it's true - THAT is how dynamic our world is.
Our world's climates are VERY easily influenced, and we surely have to recognise that even 'humble' man can have an impact.

2. There are ulterior motives.
So far, we have seen no evidence. Oh, incidentally, as someone who IS concerned about the environment, I'm a little appalled at the narrowness of your mind. There ARE some ppl who aren't in this for ego or status, but actually CARE - as incredible as that may sound to you.
POST PROOF OR RETRACT.

3. The whole thing is linked with the 'fallacy' that God exists.
Whoop-de-doo. If in doubt, blame religion. *yawns* Speaking as a committed Christian, I'm mildly amused by your statements (which I've heard before and which do nothing more than make me laugh) - explain to me why the doctrine of responsibility is outdated pray tell..? In fact, explain why Biblical beliefs are outdated to me in a PM if you so choose, bearing in mind a higher proportion of the world's population is Christian than at ANY other time in history?
I'll be frank, tho' - imo, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. I believed in environmental responsibility long before I realised the concept is Judao-Christian in origin.

 

J_K: If this is directed towards me, then I am deeply sorry... because it seems you have misunderstood each one of my arguments and their intentions.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a conservationist. I support the conservation of resources... rather than the irresponsible expenditure which requires reactionary measures after-the-fact, instead of preventive measures.

My point about religion had more to do with, specifically, the notion that this planet is somehow exclusively our responsibility. It is our responsibility insofar as what we put into it. However, if some species is dying out because it cannot survive in its given environment and we had nothing to do with it... our arrogant self-involvement in its repopulation could have devastating consequences for other species.

The earth maintains a delicate balance without requiring us to control it. Yes, I do think it rather arrogant to assume that we are solely given the responsibility of this whole earth. To me, that is a double-edged sword of a statement. On the one hand "dominion" is now being used to claim we are the "shepherds" of the environment... but on the other hand... out of the same mouths, comes the statement "The planet is ours to do with as we please."

Such sentiments, to me, wreak of egocentrism and arrogance... However, you may not be speaking from this point of view, you may not be guided by such motivations or have such misconceptions... so don't consider my statement to apply to every individual who subscribes to environmentalism.

Also, don't confuse me to be saying we shouldn't care about anything. I'm trying to advocate environmental science, not environmentalism.

Without environmental science, environmentalism is nothing more than good intentions misguided by a lack of knowledge and understanding.

In the interests of repopulating one species, we might wipe out seven others... How smart would that be? That is why knowledge of environmental science, and not just propaganda-esque "guerrilla" marketing tactics, is critical in understanding how we can help clean up whatever messes we create.

We're responsbile for no more, no less.

 

MASTER_OBI-DAN

Please note that I put the word ?direct? in bold letters for a reason, the NRA or any NGO does not have direct political power.

If you'll note, I didn't put an emphasis on direct. Power is power, and to wield it behind the scenes without getting your hands dirty is preferable.

There?s not a lot of money that pro-Environmental NGOs can obtain from expressing their views. The only sources of revenue for them, that come to mind, are membership fees, donations, etc. (much of these meagre revenues go to permanent staff, research and publication materials

My point was that the money they get is from donations etc. Their funding would dry up if hypthetically people found out that the earth wasn't warming pollution wasn't destroying the enviroment. This is why they take the boogeyman approach. I'm merely posing the question, if the oil companies groups understate the problem, can't enviromental NGO's overstate it? You find them more reliable, and it's understandable, but that doesn't make them infallible.

In contrast, big business/the energy industry, which tend to run anti-Environmental NGOs (as disinformation organizations) have a direct and vested interest: maintaining high profit margins from the status quo.

Yes their income is vastly different, but again the point I'm trying to make is that they both have a vested monetary interest.

Generous donations are nothing in comparison to energy industry profits; if you can refute this, please do

Texaco alone probably makes 10 times what every enviromental NGO takes in in a single year. I never meant to imply that the oil companies don't have a huge motive to distort the facts, because they do; however even with the wide public acceptance, people still buy gas guzzling vehicles, and don't take mass transit and use electricty unneccessarlily. Still your point is made, and I agree with you 100%.

I don?t doubt that there are some NGOs that overstate, but please note that I?ve only cited respected pro-Environmental NGOs like the Union of Concerned Scientists of the USA and the David Suzuki Foundation. If you cannot provide me with proof that these are not highly respectable NGOs, then please stop talking trash and stop making unfounded accusations.

I'm not accusing, I'm questioning. I don't think there isn't a group or individual who isn't above a questioning of their goals, and motives. I'm saying, "can't they conciveably have their own agenda? Here's why it's possible; money, power etc".

If you?re posting in the JC for the purposes of ?BS? and your own ?ego,? then I truly feel sorry for you, tenorjedi

Ego is pride. Pride in your cognitive ability, your sources, your info. Every time you hit that post button, it's an extension of your ego. The belief that your right and I'm wrong is ego. This place would be quite boring without it .

As for BS; all of life is BS, so what? Winning a debate on the internet is like winning a gold medal in the special olympics. Nobody cares cause it didn't matter to begin with.

So why am I here? For fresh perspectives, challenge, to make the day go faster, to present my notions and beliefs. To give you headaches. Take your pick.

You have not directly refuted even one of the sources that I have provided (two were governmental ? it is fair to say they are largely unbiased, two were respected pro-Environmental NGOs ? that you have refused to prove their disrepute) or refute any of the facts that I or that others on this thread have kindly provided. Not one. And you also have not provided any respected sources whatsoever ? namely, any ?links to the work of a large body of scientists that supports your position.?

I stopped debating websites with websites long ago. All you end up with is a huge reply nobody reads and it kills all reasonable debate. If you want links etc fine, www.globalwarming.org. There's always an opposing website. This is the internet. We can play, who can link more, or who can ctrl-v