Your out of line tim. Maybe hang around here a little longer before getting so twisted.

I agree. I am willing to hear/read/see just about anything then decide for myself.



J

And how do you propose we exterminate all the bees in the world? Hell, we can't even stop the Africanized honey bees from migrating into our country. Man can and does affect the world he lives in, but everything in nature has a tendency to equalize itself and find a statis that is sustainable. We may be able to make certain species go extinct, but I doubt all the nucs in the world could exterminate every bee in the world just as I doubt we'll destroy the planet with greenhouse gases. We may or may not be changing it, but it will be here as will man either way.

N8G and others,

I agree that nature will find a "statis that is sustainable" and eventually equalize, but the problem with this statement is that this new "equilibrium" may not be so human-friendly. I also agree with your belief that man most likely won't go extinct, however rising sea-levels, rising ocean temperatures, increasingly violent storms, etc. will inevitably kill large numbers of people or strip them of their homes.

In any case, I believe the issue is not human extinction, nor nature finding an equilibrium, but rather humans learning to co-exist with nature. With our smog, mass deforestation, exponential population growth, etc. we are becoming "a force of nature" (a quote from the movie). We can't expect nature to always neutralize everything and anything we throw at it. There is a limit to how much smog and trash nature can handle and I believe we are reaching that limit. Being the force that we are, I believe we must take steps to cooperate with nature.

Humans have always had a tendancy to look at nature as a resource to be used, exploited, and controlled..and I understand to some extent, we must use nature to survive. But eventually, every resource runs out. If nature "runs out" we will die. It's not the same as oil running out or coal running out since there are alternatives. The problem is, there is no alternative to nature, to earth. We must change our perspective of nature as a resource.


Let me explain...
Now, this may be getting a little too fundamental or philisophical, but I believe it's important to notice (if you haven't already). Humans are an anomoly of nature. All other animals on earth are limitted to their specific habitat since they lack the innovation and the ability to adapt (without evolution). Humans are not limitted. If there is no food in a certain area, we can devise ways to grow food or transport food. If its too hot, we have AC. If there is a shortage of anything, we can find ways to increase the supply or find replacements. Nature will never and can never "adapt" to a species that has no limits and continuously grows. Since we cannot live without nature, we must take steps to find an equilibrium with nature. Because humans are an anomoly, this equilibrium will not happen naturally. The only way to find true equilibrium is if we go extinct, or if we start to respect nature and reflect that respect in action.

Even if global warming is a "theory", we must understand that for anything to be a theory, it must be supported by facts (the theory of evolution, for example). Any theory that threatens earth should not be considered lightly, even if it is "just" a theory. The risk is too great. We only have one earth. Sadly, we will probably just keep living our normal everyday lives anyways.

P.S. in response to earlier posts saying that global warming is all a cyclical: Is it just coincidence that at the current rate, this cycle will be the shortest and hottest cycle in earth's history? Maybe it is coincidence, maybe it isn't, but it sure does not make me feel good.

When a specie is endangered, it is no longer needed by nature.

I love animals, they are all delicious.

Well I don't know about that - some of those things they eat on Fear Factor don't seem to put big smiles on their faces!

So does PETA = people eating tasty animals?

Mmmm, I guess we should test the 100year theory by selling our 'efficient' 4Runners and buying Yukons and Suburbans, haul around 6x12 box trailers filled with rocks all day long, just for the heck of it! If the theory is true, we may get to see the end of the world in around 50 years, and get to star in the next 'end of the world' Spielberg movie.

Wow it's steamy hot today, excuse me while I go and crank up the AC.

: )

I'm not too sure about the global warming debate, because as stated earlier, the earth has gone through varying climate changes over the last serveral milleniums. IMO, with natural diasters, I think it has more to do with over population and the earth reaching its carrying capacity.

Well, even though we don't get a whole lot of miles per gallon, at least our trucks are more efficient than other trucks out there. Also, Toyota offers a powerful V8 option in a midsize SUV, so for those of us that need or desire the extra power, we don't have to get a behemoth. And our engines are LEV.

golbal worming is only one of our worries..... nuclar power plants produce lots of waist daily, and it takes 10,000 years to become safe again(where is all that waist going?). other types of pollution such as garbage, it doesent help that New York puts their trash in the Ocean.
so yea we are killing our self one way or another.

my 2 cents.

Rather simplistic, but I heard an interesting quote on the radio the other day.

People were talking about climate change and global warming and one caller succinctly said: "Our weather service cannot predict what the weather will be one month from today, so how is someone supposed to know what it will be like in two hundred years?"

Again, as I have said ad nauseam here and elsewhere, once it is proven (and it has not yet been proven) that global warming absolutely is happening over the long term - not just year to year or decade to decade, there is still the issue of someone showing absolute and non-disputable evidence that it is indeed caused by man. It is the old "cause and effect" relationship that must be found true!

That, folks, is the sticky wicket.

i do wonder at what point people will accept a theory as "proven." there are those that deny the holocaust and those that still think that there are wmds in iraq. i do find it curious that most other developed countries have accepted that global warming is a reality, however, in the u.s. global warming is always presented as a "theory" that may or may not be true. are we more informed than the rest of the world? i doubt it. something tells me that the proof is there, but it is being distorted.

independent of the global warming issue, i still have heard very little on the degree to which humans are contributing to the problem.

Okay, let's assume that we are in a long-term warming period. For argument's sake, let's go with the premise that our climate is indeed changing and that the overall temperature of the Earth will rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years.

First of all, why is this happening? Is it absolutely because of mankind, folks using A/C in the summer and driving SUVs to work? Is it brought about by an increase in world population? Could it be because of natural phenomena? What about the change in the amount of radiation & heat put out by the sun? What about geothermal or volcanic activity? What about the Earth's orbit?

Once that is established, just what do we do about it? Can we do anything at all? If population is to blame (and the accompanying industrialization), why do so many want to blame the USA? After all, it is the so-called 'developing nations' where there is the most pollution and highest population growth.

Should we be working on some type of way to lower the temperature? If so, just how do we go about it? Then again, could global warming be good for the the planet and good for humanity in the long run? You could argue that we'd have a longer growing season and more arable land if the climate were a bit warmer. Imagine seeing Siberia as another breadbasket for starving folks in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Okay, end of my caffeine-fueled rant. I'll check back soon to see if anyone has anything else to add.

i don't know why, but i find that a very lucid point.

here's something else to consider: it also takes energy to MAKE new vehicles. one way you can help the environment is to keep an old car running rather than buying a new one. something generally not considered. everyone loves to focus on cars, but come on; we desperately need to focus on companies, energy production, and other countries less fortunate and more poluting.

i'm a huge environmentalist, but my primary desire is to see areas kept pristine. water polution, smog, trash, CONSTRUCTION; we have to live somewhere, but if you're like me (and i bet you are since you have a 4wd) you love and want to protect our wild places. don't let them take away our national parks, forests, all that.

i personally think global warming is unrealistic, but i'd be willing to be convinced otherwise. i'm generally a very energy concious person. i don't heat my apt or use AC. neither in my car. right now i drive a 91civic that gets over 40mpg highway. i turn lights off, use as little energy as possible.

the thing that i keep coming back to is the need for government involvement. getting on the backs of corporations and forcing them to higher standards of efficiency; grants and funding for alternate energy products.

more than anything i think we won't be saved by hydrogen fuel cells (a peculiar idea), or any other "space age" technology, but rather with better use of our current natural resources. water, wind, and (especially) sun. perhaps rather than putting a bomb in your car (hydrogen fuel cell), we could concentrate on building millions of solar panels out in the desert; and funding technology to make wind/water/solar more efficient. these are technological increases that don't take magic.

don't forget where you get your power. the absolute stupidist idea of all time is the electric car. well where the hell did the electricity come from? maybe burning coal? ridiculous. now if that electricity was being produced by solar, it would be a different story. and what about solar pannels on individual homes? these are real, valid and economically feasable possibilities. and really, as egalitarian as we want to be, the only real changes come when something is economically favorable.

don't be a NIMBY (not in my backyard); concentrate on what we can do; keeping our wild places, and our cities too, clean and protected.

and for crying out loud please remove the 4-billion gift shops, 5-star hotel, and jail (i'm not kidding, there's a jail) from yosemite valley............bastards


/rant over