[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: fHuman vs. natural influences on the environment
charliew wrote:
>
> >Global warming is going to happen over one or two lifetimes.
> If
> >it occurs as predicted, it's simply the equivalent of a
> Pinatubo on
> >the plus side, happening a couple of times per decade, and
> cumulative
> >instead of a one-time event.
>
> Admittedly, there are events which have altered the
> atmosphere's temperature. However, if the probability is
> almost nil over one lifetime, I do not consider these events
> to be particularly relevant. Regarding your statement that
> global warming is going to happen over one or two lifetimes,
> there are a couple of questions that may impact what we want
> to do about it.
>
> How much warming will occur?
>
> How much will occur over a specified time period?
>
> Is this change so fast that nature cannot adapt to it?
>
> Is this change so fast that man cannot adapt to it?
>
> One pattern I have noticed in these postings is that people
> seem to insist that no environmental impact whatsoever occur
> as a result of human activities. There is even an
> implication that humans intervene in a way that we keep
> everything constant where it is. These implications do not
> seem reasonable to me. In other words, if you want to lessen
> the impact that humans have on this planet, a good place to
> start is with the number of humans on this planet. Some of
> the posters in this group may be addressing the symptom,
> rather than the problem.
Excessive human population is the cause of almost every enviromental,
political and social problem confronting us today. People talk about
recycling their newspapers, sharing a ride to work and using unleaded
petrol as being the answer to these problems. Imagine a ship that is
sinking due to over crowding yet the captain continues to let more people
board telling them they must diet and cut their toenails.
Follow-Ups:
References: