This makes me wanna vomit (So help me God, it turned into a climate debate)

[KB5252]

Originally Posted by emainvol

I am one of those "better safe than sorry" kind of people. Neither side of the debate has done a great job of proving themselves though.

I would agree with better safe than sorry to an extent. Have to weigh the unintended consequences on both sides of the issue. In many cases I just don't see that prohibiting the output of ________ would benefit us when company A, B, and C are put out of business because of it.

[dantheman617]

Originally Posted by emainvol

The only defense that I can come up with for this action is that if Obama was an atheist and decided to change the wording when he is sworn in, I could see many Christian groups going crazy.

I can understand that. With that being said, I dont think a Atheist would ever get elected anytime soon in america.

[OrangeEmpire]

I am the main attraction at the trooper association meetings.

What drives me crazy about global warming is to think for a second we have power over the earth.

The earth can cause eruptions more powerful than an atomic weapon, the earth can carve out continents, the earth can change her temperature when she well pleases without our help.

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

I am the main attraction at the trooper association meetings.

What drives me crazy about global warming is to think for a second we have power over the earth.

The earth can cause eruptions more powerful than an atomic weapon, the earth can carve out continents, the earth can change her temperature when she well pleases without our help.

I see what you're saying OE...and it is a popular point....the earth is going to do what she is going to do...or as I've heard some say..."the earth will take care of herself." But, I ask, is the argument whether we have power over the earth or the power to influence the earth? I would argue that the concept of global warming (or global climate change) is that it is a point of power to influence, not power over. If the sun and earth want to do something, they will do it - we have little power to change that. However, it is obvious we have power to influence the earth's tendencies. We can seed clouds to cause rain - or prevent it in other places, with some degree of success. We have raised the local temperatures of specific areas by building cities there and causing urban heat traps. We have caused the rain's pH to change significantly enough in some areas to kill plant life through acid rain.

We certainly can and have influenced the earth's otherwise natural tendencies. The impacts are small on the scale of ice ages, plate tectonics, etc. When it comes to issues such as these, we currently have little or no power to influence them. The earth's climate will cool again - and we will have an ice age (unless we find a way to install a giant lens in space). However, that doesn't mean that man can have no influence over otherwise natural tendencies on time scales shorter than these very slow dynamics.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

I see what you're saying OE...and it is a popular point....the earth is going to do what she is going to do...or as I've heard some say..."the earth will take care of herself." But, I ask, is the argument whether we have power over the earth or the power to influence the earth? I would argue that the concept of global warming (or global climate change) is that it is a point of power to influence, not power over. If the sun and earth want to do something, they will do it - we have little power to change that. However, it is obvious we have power to influence the earth's tendencies. We can seed clouds to cause rain - or prevent it in other places, with some degree of success. We have raised the local temperatures of specific areas by building cities there and causing urban heat traps. We have caused the rain's pH to change significantly enough in some areas to kill plant life through acid rain.

We certainly can and have influenced the earth's otherwise natural tendencies. The impacts are small on the scale of ice ages, plate tectonics, etc. When it comes to these issues, we currently have little or no power to influence them. The earth's climate will cool again - and we will have an ice age (unless we find a way to install a giant lens in space). However, that doesn't mean that man can have no influence over otherwise natural tendencies on time scales shorter than these very slow dynamics.

The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......

[vol_in_ar]

Originally Posted by emainvol

have you ever made a post with any substance?

Originally Posted by Vol Mania 21

no

with 20,000 plus that takes some effort

[TennTradition]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......

Of course not, OE. Did you honestly get that from my post?

It isn't a matter of destroying the earth. It is simply a question of altering the earth's environment to a point that causes negative consequences for it's inhabitants. It isn't an apocalyptic doomsday scenario...

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

The earth has survived for billions of years and all of sudden humans are going to destroy the earth in the next 30 years?

Honestly.......

The earth will be here no matter what we do. The difference will be what species exist on it, and the argument isn't that we are leading ourselves to an apocalyptic destruction, but that we are trending in a direction that could have dire consequences for a decent chunk of the population both human and otherwise. Frankly, I wish scientists would stop trying to predict what will happen so they don't have egg all over their face when it doesn't.

What we do know is that the earth is warming significantly faster than in other periods of its history, and that greenhouse gases are a major player in the process. If you want to ignore that it is certainly your prerogative, but I'd rather play it safe than assume nothing horrible is going to happen. If nothing else we can be assured that the earth is losing a large portion of its fresh water supply as the glaciers melt. Supplying fresh, clean, water to our population is already becoming an issue and we're losing significant portions of the earths reserves.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by TennTradition

Of course not, OE. Did you honestly get that from my post?

It isn't a matter of destroying the earth. It is simply a question of altering the earth's environment to a point that causes negative consequences for it's inhabitants. It isn't an apocalyptic doomsday scenario...

I am not talking about you, you are 100% reasonable.

I am talking about the pinheads who say the earth is going to burn up in 30 years unless we tax cows because they fart and we need to drive cars like the flintstones.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

The earth will be here no matter what we do. The difference will be what species exist on it, and the argument isn't that we are leading ourselves to an apocalyptic destruction, but that we are trending in a direction that could have dire consequences for a decent chunk of the population both human and otherwise. Frankly, I wish scientists would stop trying to predict what will happen so they don't have egg all over their face when it doesn't.

What we do know is that the earth is warming significantly faster than in other periods of its history, and that greenhouse gases are a major player in the process. If you want to ignore that it is certainly your prerogative, but I'd rather play it safe than assume nothing horrible is going to happen. If nothing else we can be assured that the earth is losing a large portion of its fresh water supply as the glaciers melt. Supplying fresh, clean, water to our population is already becoming an issue and we're losing significant portions of the earths reserves.

I do?

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

What drives me crazy about global warming is to think for a second we have power over the earth.
[/COLOR]

I just assumed that this was a statement that you didn't think greenhouse gases created by humans warmed the Earth. Frankly, for the most part I agree with you about how ludicrous it is to tax things like cow farts, but I'm willing to accept that humans have a major influence on the world we live in environmentally.

[BigPapaVol]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

but I'm willing to accept that humans have a major influence on the world we live in environmentally.

You don't say.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

I just assumed that this was a statement that you didn't think greenhouse gases created by humans warmed the Earth. Frankly, for the most part I agree with you about how ludicrous it is to tax things like cow farts, but I'm willing to accept that humans have a major influence on the world we live in environmentally.

You had me till there.

[TreeGreen]

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

You had me till there.

That's why I said if you want to ignore it that is your prerogative. No other species or entity on earth has as much influence as humans, although the crazies seem to think cows are up there.

[OrangeEmpire]

Originally Posted by TreeGreen

That's why I said if you want to ignore it that is your prerogative. No other species or entity on earth has as much influence as humans, although the crazies seem to think cows are up there.

No argument there...

Why is it now a crisis?

Oh, that is right, it is a political issue which equals power for politicians.