Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
You guys are funny..
How can anyone ignore the effects of chemicals on the atmosphere?
The real effects on this world might not be known until we are past the point of doing anything about it, the complexity and unknown attributes make it difficult to precisely say the damage and the time frame for the damage to compound and be irreversible.
It is like saying we understand the central nervous system and how to treat it...we are far off from knowing what the consequences are of the damage to our atmosphere.
What I can tell you is on a smaller scale we CAN determine the effects of pollution and degrading of the environment with regards to water and land. We can see what happens when pollution is added to water ways and lands..when the natural resources are depleted and wasted.
So I am not sure how you guys can really say global warming and climate change is a myth and a hoax, it for sure is NOT. I also do not understand the short sided approach some here have to certain topics...that unless you are literally dying from the issue then it does not exist.
How can anyone say that less pollutions and chemicals into the atmosphere is a bad thing? Who cares if the costs are high, the costs of protecting the environment and our ecosystem cannot be measured, it is so valuable that you cannot place a price on it.
Are there crazies that go overboard? Sure there are...but to dismiss the concept and issue as a hoax and a myth is pretty stupid if you ask me.
Its like saying you dont see the value in going to a dermatologist to get a skin cancer check because you dont have cancer outwardly destroying your body!
Nobody disputes what happens when you pour toxic chemicals in the water. Look at parts of the rivers in China for examples of this. Or other such things. That is not what the thread is about. The thread is about why, despite the increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the warming has been flat. It has been predicted to be much more exaggerated than has happened thus far. Nobody even disputes the fact that putting that much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad. What is seen as the myth and hoax part is that it is causing 'man-made global warming'. It is not. That is the myth part. It is a huge money making scam by people that are taking advantage of a current liberal mindset---maybe even a guilt complex, because of how well off we are compared to under-developed countries. People love to be stirred up and be in a frenzy over something and in a constant mood of fear. It doesn't have to be communism --- it can simply be the fear of man-made global warming.
If you were to study it with an open mind, I think you would see how far off all of these computer models and things are. Droughts are less severe, hurricanes are less frequent, tornadoes, etc. All of these things that are supposed to be getting so much worse; they aren't. Of course, there are points in a trend where you can see deviations. But all of these things together simply point to 'man-made global warming' being wrong is all.
You are correct that we should be environmentally conscious! Of course that is true. No matter the issue, you should examine both sides with an open mind---and see both side's agendas. For example, DDT I don't think ever was proved to have caused a person to get sick. However, banning its use could be said to have 'killed' millions of people. Sometimes animals (Eagles or even insects) are not more important than people. Sometimes good intentions can simply be wrong.
A lot of studies show times with inverse CO2 levels and temps.
I also do not like the oil spill comparison. The warmer waters certainly helped. For example, the Alaskan spill is still showing effects --- because of the colder waters. But nobody disputes we should try at all costs to avoid oil spills!
For example, look at industrial revolution era in England with soot. Look at cities with smog problems like Mexico City or Beijing. Nobody will argue that the smog standards we put in place for cities like LA aren't good. That is not the point. Those things have nothing to do with whether man is causing global temp fluctuations. These guys that have the vested interest would have everyone believe the effect is enormous! When in fact, it is minute at best.
More polar bears than at any time. Who is to say that for most areas of earth that a warming wouldn't be great. More areas to grow crops and for animals to migrate to, etc. What if we could control the temps and we would keep it set at 58 or whatever it is now. What if the optimal temperature would really be 65 in order for us and the plants and animals to get the most out of the earth's area? Maybe the earth is trying to correct itself and warm to the core t temperature. And we are wasting our time and slowing advancements just to try to delay the inevitable and optimal? It is arrogant for us to assume this is the correct temp. Especially without complete verifiable proof that we are messing the temps up.
The example of skin issues is a little weak. Because we have complete and verifiable proof of millions of examples of when an issue is starting out and needs to be taken care of early! We only have been studying the atmosphere for a short period this one time. Extrapolation can only take you so far. And it may lead you wrong if you feed the wrong assumptions into it. Whereas, with skin issues, we have experienced it and studied it millions of times and know for a fact what happens and what is good and bad for the body. With the earth's temperature we do not know for a fact what is good or bad.
Hot Forum Topics
