|
Harold Bissonette
|
Re: Climate change
vivakomeda wrote: Not debating whether it's real or not.
Debating whether anyone cares and, if not, what has changed since a few years ago when it was THE big issue.
I hope it hasn't just fallen out of fashion with the 99%.
Where are you getting this nonsense ideas that this has ever fallen out of fashion?
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:08
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Harold Bissonette
|
Re: Climate change
GaryB2 wrote: I don't think anyone is debating the trend of the last 150-200 years. The planet does this. Always has.
No, this is precisely what scientists are saying - the latest changes are well out of line with any changes that occur natural. Man is clearly creating major disruption to the natural cycles. The only 'scientific' findings that have found anything to refute these claims have been heavily funded by rigt-wing/capitalist organisations.
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:12
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Harold Bissonette
|
Re: Climate change
Harold Bissonette wrote: GaryB2 wrote: I don't think anyone is debating the trend of the last 150-200 years. The planet does this. Always has.
No, this is precisely what scientists are saying - the latest changes are well out of line with any changes that occur natural. Man is clearly creating major disruption to the natural cycles. The only 'scientific' findings that have found anything to refute these claims have been heavily funded by rigt-wing/capitalist organisations.
(sorry for typos - just back from pub - as you may have already guessed)
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:16
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Harold Bissonette
|
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:23
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
vivakomeda
|
Re: Climate change
You'd think the imminent destruction of the planet and civilization would remain a priority. It hasn't.
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:27
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Harold Bissonette
|
Re: Climate change
vivakomeda wrote: You'd think the imminent destruction of the planet and civilization would remain a priority. It hasn't.
Yes it has.
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:30
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
vivakomeda
|
Re: Climate change
Indeed it would, hence my question.
Of course the heart of it is: are people's money where their mouths are, or are these "social movements" mere fashion?
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:31
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
vivakomeda
|
Re: Climate change
Perhaps for you sir.
Look outside.
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:31
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Harold Bissonette
|
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:33
|
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________
|
Dara
|
Re: Climate change
Harold Bissonette wrote: GaryB2 wrote: I don't think anyone is debating the trend of the last 150-200 years. The planet does this. Always has.
No, this is precisely what scientists are saying - the latest changes are well out of line with any changes that occur natural. Man is clearly creating major disruption to the natural cycles. The only 'scientific' findings that have found anything to refute these claims have been heavily funded by rigt-wing/capitalist organisations.
We humans are carbon based life forms are we not?. We are organic. By mass, human cells consist of 65–90% water (H2O), and a significant portion is composed of carbon-containing organic molecules. Oxygen therefore contributes a majority of a human body's mass, followed by carbon. Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Now correct me if I am wrong, but all of the above I have always assumed to be products and an integral part of the make up of our collective biosphere. In other words they are "natural". Is it not logical then to say that human beings and all their activity (necessary to the prime directive or not) is contained within this 'natural' framework?.
The real question here is are humans threatening their own existence through their own 'natural' processes?. I think you would have to be an ignorant fool to answer no to that one. If the concern is: are we humans endangering the planet we like to call The Earth? then in the same way the answer must surely be - no. We are certainly damaging the Earth's ability to continue to sustain MOST life forms on this planet - but permanently damaging the planet itself? - you have to define the term 'damage' to make any judgement about this. Billions of years of bombardment/climate change/heating and cooling have not 'damaged' the planet enough to make it unable to sustain life - that's an irrefutable fact. That's if the ability of a celestial to sustain life is important in any case. We humans have spent our entire existence preoccupied with celestial objects which do not support life of any kind as far as we know.
If you ask are we destroying the human race through our lack of ecological consciousness - I would say yes we are, but the jury is out as to whether or not this is a good or a bad thing in the overall scheme of things. We humans are but a temporary infestation of a rather remarkable set of cosmological, planetary and biological coincidences and whether or not we leave any trace of our ridiculously short blip on the timeline of this planet is almost certainly purely academic in the cosmological view.
But it fills up time for a bored species until they disappear in a puff of un-smoke...
|
Oct 24, 2011, 23:39
|
