1. If you are not concerned for your kids and grand kids and on down the line then, well...., whatever. Also, are you saying you know the number of days you have left on this planet?
2. I beleive that I am a little more than just an advanced ape.
Suppressed Climate Change Report
- Thread starter steyou
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
1. If you are not concerned for your kids and grand kids and on down the line then, well...., whatever. Also, are you saying you know the number of days you have left on this planet?
2. I beleive that I am a little more than just an advanced ape.
"I don't get the science behind this argument, could you site a paper or study that backs it up?"
SWGB
i suspect you are being facetious,
but in case I misread your request, I recommend reading the article that I cited above. Plenty of "science" examples in there.
SWGB
i suspect you are being facetious,
but in case I misread your request, I recommend reading the article that I cited above. Plenty of "science" examples in there.
Last edited:
I wasn't questioning your belief, I just felt it only fair to see how other beliefs might answer these questions according to their Gods plan. I was surprised by the large number. Wouldn't it be a better discussion with more than one viewpoint?
i think it is very wise to know as much as you can about others beliefs so that you can defend your own, if needed. ;-)
Question - could someone please give me an example of when we have drastically changed the environment and pollution level of an area and it had a POSITIVE outcome for the humans and animals in that area. (Please note, someone making a bunch of money does not qualify as a positive outcome).
Not drastically changing your environment or polluting it seems like good ol' common sense to me - regardless of your views on science or religion.
Not drastically changing your environment or polluting it seems like good ol' common sense to me - regardless of your views on science or religion.
Politics will get injected into the global warming/cooling debate just as religion will always get inserted into Evolution/Creationism debate.
Shouldn't scientist truly be non-partisan in their capacity to search for the Truth.
There are scientist who are non-partisan who have stated that the global warming issue a non-issue. What happens to them? They are hammered by the scientist who are in the hip pockets of the folks who are pushing this non-issue. I do wish that we could seperate the politicians from the scientist. However, the politicians all of the sudden, when pushed, become so smart (scientist) when conveinent or sometimes even inconveinent. Really, can you beleive that a politicain from Tennessee won a Nobel Peace Prize? He will end up being one of the greatest stooges of all time, in the end. For what? Personal gain and politics. But based on the money he is going to make off the backs of the working man, I guess we are the stooges.
1.) I am concerned for my nieces welfare in the future. That is why I would prefer to be proactive in this case rather than reactive. It seems that an "older" population wants to keep telling me everything is fine and not to worry about it or that it's as natural as burning icky black stuff into icky black smoke.
2.) You can believe all you want, but quite telling me I have to believe in your imaginary friend.
- Acid Rain
- Smog
- Man Made Noise Pollution that harms sea animals
- Chemical pollution found in our oceans
- Hazardous waste and sewage spills
- Strip mining, deforestation, and other destructive practices
- Nuclear power plant accidents or leakage
Oh wait, you said POSITIVE - no, can't think of any ;-)
G
The house you live in used to sit in a forest or a plain, but now the area provides you with shelter. Is that a positive or negative outcome?
Prior to large scale farming, the central plain was a vast natural mix of prairie and wetlands. It now provides all the grain we use in food production and even fuel production. Farming in general is very destructive to the environment; it represents mass environmental change. But it also has a very positive impact on our lives too.
Damns that provide power, jobs, water management, and control flooding...
Government built levees (when they work) that protect cities...
What about natural disasters that affect large areas, are those positive or negative? When Mt. St. Helens blew and leveled thousands of square miles of forest, was that an "environmental disaster"? Was the net net positive or negative?
There are plenty of examples of environmental change, none of which represent a 100% positive impact, but the net total can be very positive, IMHO. Global warming is no different, it represents a mixture of positive and negative. What's the net effect? Nobody knows for sure.
I don't think there are absolutes here, despite politicians attempts to make it seem as if everything is clear cut and dried and can be defined clearly on a piece of paper.
Last edited: