There are a few facts that I believe are undisputed: 1) The world's human population grows over time. 2) With each generation we become more reliant on technology. 3) With a growing population and increased reliance on tech, production (of cars, food, homes, highways, strip malls, tech toys, etc) increases over time. 4) A side effect of production, using our current methods, is pollution. 5) Our pollution output therefore is therefore increasing over time. 6) At the same time, our increasing production results in more "green" areas being paved over. 7) Our atmosphere is finite; a closed system consisting of approximately 5,140 trillion tonnes of air and approximately 1.4 billion cubic kilometers of water. 8 ) With an ongoing increase in pollutants, and reduction in pollution "sinks" represented by green areas, we will eventually reach the point when the total pollution produced will exceed the capacity of the sinks. 9) The fact that "smog" is a word that didn't exist 150 years ago, but is now so common that it's barely mentioned, is one of several indications we may already have passed this point. 10) an accumulation of pollutants, such as smog, is harmful to human beings. If the above train of thought is accurate, we are likely poisoning ourselves out of existance by maintaining the status quo - irregardless of whether the pollution causes massive changes to global temperatures. So, isn't the "debate" over GW a bit redundant? Whether climate changes or not, the increased toxicity of global ecosystems represents a threat that needs to be addressed. Thoughts?
Science will ride in on its white horse to the rescue. We will have energy production means that will not pollute, eventually. So, not to worry. Better living through science and high tech. The future is bright illuminated by light bulbs that don't have to use fossil fuels. So, the future is so bright, you will have to wear shades. We will have to find a way to pump co2 into the atmosphere so we can feed all of those people.
That's a comforting platitude, but unlikely if those who have invested trillions of dollars into the status quo decide to use their accumulated wealth to bury technologies that might challenge their business models by buying legislators and public distrust. Even if that wasn't the case, "eventually" is not soon enough (as I illustrated in point 9).
To your title..."become" a red herring? Perhaps "designed" would work better in that sentence? Are you familiar with how the early adopters of the anti-population position configured their early mission statements to craft the message to make future generations more compliant to a very specific type of perspective? Scientists, real scientists, began to make honesty optional in their desire to deliver a particular message, discussing the need for instead for scary scenarios? October, 1975, in North Carolina to be exact. Of course the debate over climate change is redundant...there is no question the climate has warmed, and in the process destroyed entire ecosystems, such as the Beringia. And it didn't require a single coal fired power plant to do it. The hubris of humans is amazing...much like the earth-centric view of the religious wingnuts way back when, everything has to be about US. I have news...if we all were gone tomorrow...the world would quite happily go on without us. If we live another 10,000 years in our current form...and then were all gone...the world would go on quite happily without us. The only known biologic to even change the biosphere on a global scale happened 50+ million years ago, we haven't even scratched the surface of what that wonderful plant did...but because we are humans, oh how important we must be...if a thermometer shows a +0.05C increase over a century....HOLY CRAP!!! WHAT HAVE WE DONE!!!
The false implication you're pushing is that since some climate change is natural, therefore no climate change can be anthropogenic. Do you have an argument that's actually logical in there somewhere? While the denizens of Denierstan slouch toward human extinction and yawn "hey, no biggie," the adults in the room are actually trying to save human civilization. You're welcome. If only it were a 0.05C increase per century, we would have nothing to worry about. The problem is that we're changing the climate 30 times faster than that, which is 10 times faster than the fastest known warming in geological history.
I never said that. I recommend you learn to read, as I try and be clear about such things. Define "natural", if you can. Humans are natural, by extension whatever they choose to do with their time and efforts can therefore also be deemed natural. Conversely, everything could be ruled "unnatural", as our climate is completely dependent upon an exogenous energy source, the nearby nuclear furnace. If you actually BELIEVED your own press, you would be doing something about it. Let me guess, you aren't riding a bicycle right now to power your hydrocarbon based computer are you?
but all of this is true, if only someone presupposed what the earth would have been like without man. Do any of you know that answer? Would the dinosaurs still have all died? I think so. Would the earth have warmed from the ice age? I believe so. So all of the what ifs in the world and no one upon no one knows what the earth is supposed to do! I'm tired of the money hungry left looking to spook all of mankind. Don't go away mad, just go away!!!!
That's simply moronic. You can't shoot someone then claim that they were probably going to get hit by a car anyway. As for the "money hungry left", are you totally oblivious to the fact that it's predominantly republicans who deny climate change, predominantly republicans who get handed money by the most environmentally toxic industries, and predominantly republicans who fought for Citizens United in order to keep the big $ flowing?
