Our environment has a certain capacity for life. Are we reducing it by exterminating certain species?, I personally don't think so. Will virulant organisms bloom?, likely. We've gone through the industrial age with disregard to the environment, now we look down on third world countries that want what we have, and yes, gargabe line thier streets.

Here in Alberta, not unlike many other locations, our electricity is largely generated via coal burning. Our emissions level is not impressive. Yet it is the tar sands that recieve most attention. However it is the tarsands that are the leading edge of technology in researching advanced emissions techniques. Two emerging technologies include capture/compression/injection, the second being coalbed gasification. The latter is of special interest in that hydrogen rich/pure gases can be produced. There has been much discussion in regards to fuel cells and the need for a hydrogen source. That source will possibly be had as a secondary product of gasificaton. The beauty of this technique is that the carbon emissions never leave the ground.

 

I just don't buy that humans are(edit) responsible for anywhere near the number of extinctions that nature, including other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and prions, has caused.

John

 

I just don't buy that humans are responsible for anywhere near the number of extinctions that nature, including other animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, viruses, and prions, has caused.

John

One thing is for sure. Extinction is a normal part of the history of life on earth. Many many more species have gone extinct in history, compared to those species living now. And, more than 99.9 % of those extinctions occurred long before humans existed. We shouldn't use this as an excuse to be reckless (and there are plenty of cases when we have been), but we also shouldn't feel that inadvertently driving a species extinct is an unforgivable crime (we aren't omnipotent beings with perfect foresight).

To live, is to evoke change. That is inevitable.

The bottom line is that we are an integral part of nature, no matter how much some people like to think we are separate from it. There are strong interactions between all life forms. Also, getting back to the original topic, there are strong interactions of all life with the Earth's atmospheric composition too. Soon, human's will be responsible for doubling the CO2 concentration in an unprecedented (or at least rare) 200-300 years. However, look at the 21% oxygen content of our atmosphere. It is there because plants evolved, and we would not be here without this awesome change. If the Earth's life survived a 21% increase in poisonous oxygen, it will no doubt survive anything we will do to it.

The question of whether we will avoid becoming extinct is a separate discussion entirely. We may do something that does us harm, but which future life will benefit from. Time will tell if our unique intelligence and adaptability is more powerful than the ominous survival statistics, and the overwhelming and unpredictable forces of nature.

 

OOPS, I left out a key word, my statement should read "not responsible."

It has been edited.

John

 

OOPS, I left out a key word, my statement should read "not responsible."

It has been edited.

John

Are you sure about that edit? With this change you are saying that you think humans have caused more extinctions than nature. I think you meant it the original way.

 

How often does some one quotes The New York Times as a
source,congress makes there stories part the record. More often
than science Information,Nature magazine was duped by some story
about growing cells to replace silicon in transistors.From 1-10 how
do you rate the times and Nature mag. What is most believable
source you depend on for correct Info.

 

@steveb

Double OOPS. You are so right. It was correct as originally written. My mind is just not with it this evening.

To add a little, I am not too concerned about saving a life form that can't compete. True, it might be good to have some of the recently extinct species around as curiosities, but humans by ourselves are not very good at making anything extinct. Maybe, we just gave a nudge.

One concern is that our actions may help those species that are pretty good competitors become even better competitors. Consider the past 60 years of infectious diseases. Staphylococcus aureus and tuberculosis were big problems before 1950, then became little problems with antibiotics, and are now re-emerging as potentially even greater problems.

John

 

In regards to the op, I listened for about 15 minutes. I'm immediately sceptic about one who claims to hold all truths.

I also can't agree that population will be controlled by raising the standard of living for the poor. If you give a home to the people of India's dumps, how long will it take before a new generation of dump people fill the void.

 

This is an interesting history of the question as posed in the thread title.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1086

 

Seems like a hundred years ago that we gave up r-12 to close the
hole in the ozone. We made a difference,20 years from now we will
think nothing about being green. Time cures all.

 

This is an interesting history of the question as posed in the thread title.

http://www.jamesphogan.com/bb/bulletin.php?id=1086

Those of us who have lived long enough (I was born in 1960) know that we have gone from "the coming ice age" to "global warming" to "climate change" since 1970. And now matter WHO was saying WHAT, we were always assured that this (whatever was being said at the time) spelled the end of humanity.

First, in the 70's, I was taught in school that pollution was "shading" us from the sun, contributing to the natural, cyclical, cooling that was coming anyway.

Then, by the 90's, my kids were being taught that we were actually trapping more heat with the afore-mentioned pollution.

But, alas, the evidence is so weak, and now there are actual signs of cooling (or at least stabilization over the previous indicated warming) that the word is "Climate Change".

This reminds me of my dad in 1972. When I came home and told him of the 'coming ice age' due to us driving our cars, he laughed and told me to "take what they tell you with a grain of salt". When I questioned why school was so important if I could not trust what I was being taught - he simply said that "grades will follow you your whole life".

But he was right - there is, always has been, and always will be, a 'crisis' that someone wants to shove down our throats. And while they preach that they are trying to save us from ourselves, one often gets the idea that what they are really doing is trying very hard to control us. OR, maybe, tax us in a way - or for a 'reason', that we won't complain about.

(Gotta save the planet - no price is too great for a job that big and important, right?)

 

Usually the people that are in the media, making the huge uproar (Al Gore), have a financial interest in gathering a crowd of followers. The glaciers are melting, global warming, we are going to burn up or drown. Some people will burn for all eternity! The glaciers were a product of an Ice Age, thousands of years ago, and have been melting ever since. Eventually, the planet will return to a warmer temperature we apparently had before the Ice Age. We can't stop flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes or volcanoes, so who in their right mind would believe we can control global temperature? Why would we want to? Might go from a few degrees increase, to colder temperatures.

 

Usually the people that are in the media, making the huge uproar (Al Gore), have a financial interest in gathering a crowd of followers. The glaciers are melting, global warming, we are going to burn up or drown. Some people will burn for all eternity! The glaciers were a product of an Ice Age, thousands of years ago, and have been melting ever since. Eventually, the planet will return to a warmer temperature we apparently had before the Ice Age. We can't stop flooding, hurricanes, earthquakes or volcanoes, so who in their right mind would believe we can control global temperature? Why would we want to? Might go from a few degrees increase, to colder temperatures.

I agree, humans can't possibly make any significant impact towards "global warming" and we don't have the money if we could. Global warming has gotten far too political.

Austin

 

Hot off the press - http://www.ecnmag.com/article-co2-levels-remained-constant-111109.aspx?menuid=0

Don't know the methodology, but it might call the current assumptions into serious question.

 

Climategate.

 

The free press won't dig the truth on a lot of subjects that
has to do with things and numbers we really need. We are
being overloaded on this subject and we are posting about it.
I just mentioned Dubai in post a few days ago. Look at it now,
you better take some interest in tarp and stuff. America,U.K.
now Denmark will be next. We have a real voice among ourselfies
that we can use our opinions without loudness,keep it calm
so it don't get locked. Think about small populations that are contained
within there borders with wealth with no outsiders. The U.S. has
mini countries within each county claiming there stake in U.S.
thus misleading goals our fore fathers. Two days and you are a pilgrim
with all the voting rights no concerns about global warming,just cash.

 

To a point, I agree with the environmentalist, in that we could and need to clean up our planet, and quite being so wasteful with our resources. I don't believe the hype or eminent doom and disaster they keep trying to use to force people into action. We have been making a mess of our home for a thousand years, and it will likely take as long to clean it up, and change the way people behave. We are no different from any other animal, just more destructive and less efficient. Human beings still have a lot of growing up to do, before we can begin repairing our home. Personally, I think making any sort of radical changes in CO2, or the environment in general, will cause more harm, than good. We live on a delicate balance, tip the scale too much one way, you force everything else to go another, which will cause other critical problems.

 

In my view, nature has a wonderful way of rolling merrily along. With the sky and oceans being such effective buffers, organisms that live within natural selection, although not secure as a species, are accepting of thier surroundings.

We as a species, have deviated from the process. We think that we are developing security, yet with the complexity of our artifical exsistance, calamity becomes a resonant, waiting for the critical value to be reached.

 

We all know that the world climate has changed and will continue to do so. The thing I'm not convinced about is all the fervour concerning the agent. Does it really matter?

 

I've heard that scientists are recently trying to hide the fact that the earth is actually cooling down; over the course of the last two years. Now people are skeptical that we are causing a climate change, and more scientists are gradually opposing the global warming myth.

Austin