71
   

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 02:42 pm
@Foxfyre,
Do you stop to listen to what you are saying Fox?

First you claim there is no warming then you claim the warming isn't caused by man. Your second argument defeats your first and shows you are not arguing from a scientific basis.
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 04:09 pm
@parados,
Parados - there is no contradiction since statement (b) is not contingent upon statement (a) being true. For some reason I thought you had mathematical and scientific training Smile
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 04:53 pm
@High Seas,
Thanks HS, even disregarding the fact that I claimed nothing and never have on this thread. Do I think the skeptics have made the best case? Absolutely, and that makes me especially suspicious of any claims that significant AGW is an absolute or near absolute fact. Having no expertise in this field however, the only thing I have ever claimed was what my perceptions appeared to be based on the information we have all posted over these many months and pages and what of that makes the best case to me.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 06:04 pm
@Foxfyre,

Well- I think we are causing GW by our emissions. I think the ozone layer business is evidence, not proof, that even an itsy-bitsy emission from scented-armpit spray cans can effect the atmosphere significantly. When I see a traffic jam and then think of all the other traffic jams and then I see those industrial chimneys all over the world belching forth their noxious fumes, containing many other things besides CO2, and then I see the vapour trails over my little bowl of sky, I cannot persuade myself otherwise.

As I have pointed out--that's not the question. It is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. If, for example, the scientific record showed a regular pattern of ice to tropical every five hundred years, which it doesn't, but if it did, and we were due a frosty then we might get government subsidies to leave our car engines running in the garage all night and on the car parks.

If by doing so we could put possible other agricultural systems out of business or prevent them starting up --well--that would be a bonus. And the north-west passage might come in handy and a number of other things.

For my money, without that it's all just career opportunities, pork, and looking good. A type of religion with a set of unifying beliefs. No hope of any objective truths. One that sees itself as controlling destiny.

No self-respecting Darwinian would go anywhere near such a religion.

You are obviously Cat-Woman from Planet X* and not Earth-Mother.

I can't say I blame you.

* I used "X" because I couldn't think of an alternative you might find acceptable.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 10:38 pm
Lets not forget, folks, the apparent melting on Mars, and the likely common denominator with Earth, which is solar.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Dec, 2008 11:17 pm
For anybody who might have missed it so far....

Man-made global warming is a bunch of bullshit. In fact, ANY kind of global warming, man-made or otherwise is a pile of bullshit.

The only person who could believe such a thing would be somebody who hadn't been outside since about last January. The guys at the observatories are going nuts. Apparently they saw a few sunspots in October, but that's about it for the year and, last time anybody ever went more than about a month and a half or thereabouts without seeing sunspots, was just prior to the little ice age.

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 07:53 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
Thanks HS, even disregarding the fact that I claimed nothing and never have on this thread.
Laughing
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 08:02 am
@High Seas,
Quote:

a. there is no warming

b.the warming isn't caused by man.


Quote:
Parados - there is no contradiction since statement (b) is not contingent upon statement (a) being true.



How can there be warming if there is no warming? Please explain. Be specific in how (b) can be true if (a) is true. I look forward to your intelligent response.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 11:44 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:


Well- I think we are causing GW by our emissions. I think the ozone layer business is evidence, not proof, that even an itsy-bitsy emission from scented-armpit spray cans can effect the atmosphere significantly. When I see a traffic jam and then think of all the other traffic jams and then I see those industrial chimneys all over the world belching forth their noxious fumes, containing many other things besides CO2, and then I see the vapour trails over my little bowl of sky, I cannot persuade myself otherwise.

As I have pointed out--that's not the question. It is whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. If, for example, the scientific record showed a regular pattern of ice to tropical every five hundred years, which it doesn't, but if it did, and we were due a frosty then we might get government subsidies to leave our car engines running in the garage all night and on the car parks.

If by doing so we could put possible other agricultural systems out of business or prevent them starting up --well--that would be a bonus. And the north-west passage might come in handy and a number of other things.

For my money, without that it's all just career opportunities, pork, and looking good. A type of religion with a set of unifying beliefs. No hope of any objective truths. One that sees itself as controlling destiny.

No self-respecting Darwinian would go anywhere near such a religion.

You are obviously Cat-Woman from Planet X* and not Earth-Mother.

I can't say I blame you.

* I used "X" because I couldn't think of an alternative you might find acceptable.


Well I don't know whether I'm from Planet X or not. My birth certificate doesn't say that, but then it probably wouldn't would it? There have been times of particular chaos or troubles that the world seems quite alien to me and it would be comforting to think that it might be possible to return to somewhere else.

And then there are times when Planet Earth and the creatures on it seems to be quite wonderful and I'm content to be a mere Earthling.

I do believe we humans have the ability to foul our little nest here in the universe and at times have done so to pieces of it. As an emphatic environmentalist I do object to such fouling when it is unnecessary and unavoidable. But I am also opposed to unnecessary poverty, sickness, suffering, and deprivation and recognize that humans will naturally leave their mark on the planet as do all other creatures. Beavers are indiscriminate in the trees they kill to construct their dams and dens, species dwindle and become extinct as superior species develop and overpower the weaker, the ground is barren and infertile along the elephant walk.

And humans, alone of all the species, note all these things and care about the survival of all.

I have often made the 100-mile drive from Roswell NM to Vaughn. At time I have driven a distance from the highway, switched off the engine, exited the vehicle, and stood marveling at a massive piece of the Earth that remains almost as pristine as God made it. At such a time we realize how puny we humans actually are and how enduring and constant is the planet we inhabit.

I will continue to rail against those who intentionally and unnecessarily foul our water, soil, and air and will hope there is a special place in hell for those who would intentionally spoil beauty or cause suffering the creatures of the Earth.

But I remain unconvinced that the Earth would not be generating periods of warming and cooling, much as what we have experienced in our lifetime, whether we humans lived here or not.



spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 12:13 pm
@Foxfyre,
I don't find that-

Quote:
I have often made the 100-mile drive from Roswell NM to Vaughn.


sits comfortably next to-

Quote:
I will continue to rail against those who intentionally and unnecessarily foul our water, soil, and air and will hope there is a special place in hell for those who would intentionally spoil beauty or cause suffering the creatures of the Earth.


But I suppose it depends on a definition of "unnecessarily".


Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 01:58 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

But I suppose it depends on a definition of "unnecessarily".


Certainly. The construction of a large dam such as Hoover Dam, for instance, almost certainly drowned or destroyed the habitat of countless creatures. But it also provides new habitat for different creatures as well as a dependable water supply and massive amounts of energy for humans. Was it necesssary? That is certainly a question with mostly subjective answers. But should it not have been done? Also subjective but more easily answered.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 02:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Actually Foxy--I was alluding to your "100-mile drive from Roswell NM to Vaughn" . And I'm not for a moment saying it was unnecessary. But it is subjective. A that's where the finger-twisting begins in the philosophy department's evening discussions in the dining room with the port with senior members of other faculties who all think they have it too easy.

When you are hoping for a special place in hell for those unnecessarily taking long journeys you are going to have to prove it was necessary.

Which would be a tall order in the after-dinner discussion.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 04:50 pm
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/

Quote:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
1: Global Temperature Record
Phil Jones

{graph of temperature anomalies 1850 to 2007; approximately -0.4C to +0.4C; -0.72F to +0.72F}

(this graph of HadCRUT3 is also available as Encapsulated PostScript and PDF
suitable for publication, and the data are available as Comma-Separated Values)




0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 05:13 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.


THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

215

Analytical chemist Hans Schreuder who publishes the UK based website ILoveMyCarbonDioxide.com, rejected man-made global warming fears in 2007. "Any and all arguments put forward by the perceived consensus of scientists who still have their names engraved on the IPCC report are based on nothing more than theory and best fit computer modeling. Normally varying weather patterns are ‘blamed' on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) without any scientific basis and for the sole purpose of scaremongering a gullible public," Schreuder wrote on December 10, 2007. Schreuder also asserted that "ALL ‘proof' is based on theories and computer models, not actual direct evidence - cause there ain't none. ALL the records from the past show clearly that CO2 did NOTHING to ‘drive' or ‘force' any temperature changes. If it did, we would be as hot as hell by now and no life would be possible."

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

216
Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin (name also sometimes translated to spell Soroktin) of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." Sorochtin, who made several Antarctic expeditions, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "The temperature increase has a pronounced natural origin and is not determined by the ‘greenhouse effect' of greenhouse gases," Sorochtin wrote in an essay on October 9, 2007 in Ria Novosti. (translated) "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. "The real causes of climate change lie in the unevenness of the sun's radiation, in the precession (amendment of the rotational axis) of the earth, in the instability of the ocean currents in the periodic desalination and salinity of surface waters of the Arctic Sea and the other. The main causes of which are the solar activity and the luminosity. The higher these parameters, the higher the temperature," Sorochtin wrote. "The highest point of the warming has already occurred," he wrote. "The low point phase of solar activity, with a sharp decline in temperature will be accompanied; against the year 2041 is expected. The cool climate is at least 50 to 60 years," he added. (LINK)

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

217
Climate change author and engineer Rolf Riehm of Germany wrote the 2007 book skeptical of man-made global warming titled Is the climatic Change inevitable? - About the Environmental Hypocrisy. "Allegedly the temperature of the earth has risen during the past 20 years by about 0.6° C. And carbon dioxide is claimed to be the reason for it. In reality it is not possible to mea¬sure the temperature of the earth: One would have to define before in what region, one would have to say if we compare at night or during day-time. If in summer or in winter. If we measure in the Antarctic or in the Sahara!" Riehm wrote in his book. "In reality climate changes occur in cycles of several 1000 years," he added. Riehm also critiqued former Vice President Al Gore. "Gore has no knowledge of the laws of science. But this does not prevent him from making hundreds of false statements. He showed terrific trick films of the rise of the sea water level and showed how dozens of major towns drowned in the floods," Riehm wrote.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

218
State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O'Brien, professor emeritus of Florida State University, and who serves as the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears. "The best measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even the UN IPCC quotes this," O'Brien wrote to EPW on September 23 about an AP article predicting dire sea level rise. "If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146 years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‘scare tactic' for these guys," O'Brien added. (LINK)

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

219
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001, declared, "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense" in an April 10, 2007 article. Gray is also a member of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. "All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections' and ‘estimates'. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation' means, and their ‘projections' are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts' with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections' and ‘estimates'. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous," Gray noted. "Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‘warming'. Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960," Gray added. (LINK) In a July 3, 2007 blog post, Gray further explained, "I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored." "The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it," he added. "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so," he concluded. (LINK) In a May 28, 2007 letter to Canada's The Hill Times, Gray noted how political the IPCC process has become. "[No one can] deny that the ‘Summary for Policymakers' is approved line-by-line by the government representatives because the press has recently mentioned that particular conclusions have involved clashes between the Russians, Chinese and Americans. The ‘drafting authors' job is to write down what they are told to do," Gray wrote. "...The ‘lead authors' of the report are all chosen (and usually financed) by government representatives, so they can be relied upon to produce results which the governments like. They do not want another fiasco like the one in the 1995 report when they had to alter the ‘final draft' to comply with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.' They have a set of instructions for ‘lead authors' which ensures that they toe the line. This year's report is more extreme than before and there is continuous publicity for its extravagant claims. The ‘lead authors' are certainly behind this, but an increasing proportion of all the other scientists involved with the report are becoming irritated by the propaganda. It is interesting that this year we have had a succession of ‘Summaries for Policymakers' without a single copy of any of the reports upon which they are supposed to be based," he concluded.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

220
Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic, challenged the premise of the CO2 driven climate cycles in a April 9, 2007 blog post. (LINK) "As we have explained in 2006, Vostok ice core records show that the carbon dioxide concentration averaged over a few centuries has been correlated with temperature at least for half a million of years. However, we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the CO2 concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. It follows that the greenhouse effect hasn't been important in the last half a million of years," Motl wrote. "For whatever reason, some people are not willing to accept this obvious conclusion. That's why they invent various bizarre verbal constructs to circumvent the otherwise inevitable conclusion," Motl noted. "However, there are other ways to see that the influence of temperature on the concentration of gases has been more important than any influence in the opposite direction. For example, the ice core records show that the concentration of methane was correlated with temperature, too. If the CO2 concentration were the primary cause, we would have no explanation why the CH4 (Methane) concentration was also correlated. In fact, CO2 and CH4 play the very same role in the ice core records. If some combination of them determined the temperature, we would still have no explanation why these two concentrations were correlated with one another," Motl added. (LINK)

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

221
Team of Scientists Question Validity of a 'Global Temperature' - From a March 18, 2007 article in Science Daily: "Discussions on global warming often refer to 'global temperature.' Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Physicist Dr. Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada." The Science Daily article reads, "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth." "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate." He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistics locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. "The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average 'global exchange rate.'" The article concludes, "These are but two examples of ways to calculate averages. They are all equally correct, but one needs a solid physical reason to choose one above another. Depending on the averaging method used, the same set of measured data can simultaneously show an upward trend and a downward trend in average temperature. Thus claims of disaster may be a consequence of which averaging method has been used, the researchers point out." (LINK)

0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 05:59 pm
Quote:

http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm
Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
...

There is good evidence that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) today is more than 25% higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The recent increase in atmospheric CO2 has occurred since the beginning of the “industrial” era (defined as since 1750) and most of that increase has occurred over the past 50 years. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is primarily from burning of fossil fuels (land-use changes and cement manufacturing also contribute) with half of this increase having occurred since the mid 1970s.

Direct Measurements of Carbon Dioxide
Scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have been measuring the level of CO2 in the atmosphere at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since the late 1950s. They have found an increase from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1959 to 382 ppm in 2006. The unit ppm represents 1 part CO2 per 1 million parts air. Figure 1 shows this record.

please see graph at:
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm

Figure 1. Record of atmospheric carbon dioxide from the Mauna Loa Observatory; atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million (ppm) are shown on the y-axis against time for almost 50 years. Monthly average values are given as individual points. Plotted using data from CDIAC website (see References section for information).

In Figure 1 the overall trend upward from the late 1950s through the present shows the “sawtooth” pattern of the annual cycle caused by the growth and decay of plants. These seasons correspond to those in the Northern Hemisphere for the Mauna Loa record.

This increase is seen worldwide, with a slightly different seasonal pattern depending on the location, but with the same total increase. CO2 measuring stations have been established from the tropics to polar regions and many have been making measurements for decades. Since the atmosphere mixes relatively rapidly, the average concentration is fairly similar everywhere in the world. Many of these data sets can be found at the US Department of Energy CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) website at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (see References section for information).

Information from Ice Cores - Digging into the Past
With mounting evidence of rising CO2 levels, scientists have tried to determine whether our planet had previously experienced similar CO2 increases. The answer has been found in the frozen ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Air bubbles frozen in glacial ice tell about the concentration of atmospheric gases at the time the ice was formed. It is possible to drill into glaciers and collect ice samples, or cores; younger ice is at the top of the core while older ice is found deeper. This method has been used to learn about atmospheric conditions several hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Through analysis of the ice cores, scientists have learned that atmospheric CO2 levels and temperatures varied over the past 420 thousand years; CO2 and temperature followed similar patterns. During the coldest periods, marked by maximum glacial coverage, CO2 concentrations hovered near 190 parts per million (ppm). When temperatures warmed and glaciers retreated, CO2 concentrations were much higher but never exceeded 300 ppm until recently. This pattern is illustrated in Figure 2.

please see graph at:
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm

Figure 2. Historic atmospheric CO2 levels and air temperatures over the past 420,000 years reconstructed from ice cores taken at the Vostock ice station in Antarctica. Time is shown on the x-axis (horizontal) as years before present (BP); atmospheric concentration of CO2 is shown on the y-axis (vertical) as parts per million (by volume " ppmv). Figure derived from Petit et al, 1999 (see References section for information).

Figure 2 has been interpreted with the background knowledge that glacial events over the past one to two million years show periods of about 100 thousand years. This longer record has been supplemented with shorter cores from Antarctica and Greenland which show that between about 1000 AD and the mid-1800s, atmospheric CO2 was fairly constant at about 290 ppm. Since the mid-1800s (within the industrial era), CO2 levels have climbed to levels not reached at any time in the past half million years. Scientists link this finding to a simultaneous increase in CO2 emissions caused by human activities.

Emissions of Carbon From Human Activities
Several human activities release CO2 into the atmosphere (called anthropogenic, human-origin, emissions). Fossil-fuel burning is the predominant anthropogenic source of CO2, but cement production and other activities also contribute (including the “land-use” activity of deforestation). Using a combination of modern and historic data, scientists estimate that humans have sent a total of 305 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since 1751; half of these emissions have occurred since the mid-1970s (Figure 3).

please see graph at:
http://co2.cms.udel.edu/Increasing_Atmospheric_CO2.htm

Figure 3. Annual emissions of carbon to the atmosphere from 1751 to 2003 due to anthropogenic (human-caused) sources, primarily from fossil-fuel burning. Plotted using data from CDIAC website (see References section for information).

Today, atmospheric CO2 levels are 25% greater than at any time in the past 420,000 years. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, but also including land-use activities, are responsible for the increase.

There has been considerable research and analysis of increased atmospheric CO2 and global warming; see section on “Climate Change”. About half of the recent emissions are not accumulating in the atmosphere, but are going into the ocean and, to a lesser extent, into soils. These are considered “sinks” in the global carbon budget because they take up atmospheric CO2. The chemistry of the ocean changes as a result of increased CO2 concentrations; this subject is further examined in the section on “Ocean Acidification”.

Were the temperature increases and decreases in the last 420,000 years caused by, respectively, increases and decreases in CO2 density in the atmosphere; or ,were the temperature increases and decreases in the last 420,000 years the cause of, respectively, increases and decreases in CO2 density in the atmosphere?


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 06:24 pm
@ican711nm,
I hope ican that your posts are not trying to snow on my last one. After all, if those polluting the most are complaining about pollution the most there has to be grounds for something being a bit odd.

I've read that the nation known as Chad has a lower carbon footprint than the average US family. I suppose it's an exaggeration but it makes a serious point.

The Chadians are people.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 06:26 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

Actually Foxy--I was alluding to your "100-mile drive from Roswell NM to Vaughn" . And I'm not for a moment saying it was unnecessary. But it is subjective. A that's where the finger-twisting begins in the philosophy department's evening discussions in the dining room with the port with senior members of other faculties who all think they have it too easy.

When you are hoping for a special place in hell for those unnecessarily taking long journeys you are going to have to prove it was necessary.

Which would be a tall order in the after-dinner discussion.


I make that drive to Roswell to:
a) Attend to work that my clients deem necessary
b) To deliver kids to our church camp south of Roswell. Necessary? They sure do like to go.
c) To attend board meetings on which I serve. I'm sure that it is not necessary that I serve on them.
d) An occasional teaching/speaking engagement. Certainly not necessary but I like to think some feel benefitted by it.

If you get right down to it, it is not necessary that we human live at all on Planet Earth. We could all do the really selfless thing, end it all, and leave it to whatever other creatures survive the changing climate cycles. It would be a shame that nobody would be around to appreciate the sacrifice though, huh?

If it is necessary that beavers build dams or elephants travel their chosen routes or that fish swim or birds migrate, then perhaps somewhere in the grand scheme of things it is also necessary that humans do what humans do. Our Creator provided us with a much higher ability to chose than any other creatures apparently possess, and therefore we can choose what we do. But to assume that we are somehow a problem when we do it just doesn't fit very well into the big picture. Especially when we take reasonable care to do no intentional harm.

And long journeys just might very well fit into the natural scheme of things within the grand design.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 06:37 pm
@Foxfyre,
They very well might. We could be thermostats.

As we retreat to the higher ground in what are now arctic regions we pollute less and thus it cools down and we can then move back and warm it up again.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 10:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre, good points. I have contended that the bulldozers, chainsaws, skyscrapers, mines, oil wells, automobiles, and all the rest that man has built are just as much a part of nature as the beaver dams. As you point out, God, or nature, whichever people prefer, designed man or evolved man to have a brain to do what he does just as much as the beaver's brain tells it to do what it does. Man also has a brain to try to mitigate or reclaim some of the things that he does, but his brain should also tell him that hysteria is a pointless pursuit as well - and that reasonable development and use of earth's resources are entirely reasonable and fitting for mankind. If we were not meant to do all of this, our brains would not allow us to do it.

What I have expressed is actually part of Judeo-Christian belief, founded in Genesis, wherein God tells man to have dominion over the earth and its creatures, and to use it, till it, etc. Environmentalism represents a new religion which rejects that basic foundation of human behavior and seeks to place man on an equal footing with plants, animals, and the earth, not having dominion over it but to be in subjection to it.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Dec, 2008 10:51 pm
@okie,
And one doesn't even need to share the Judeo-Christian faith to appreciate the concept either. It's just like my previous example of Hoover Dam that destroyed much in the process of building it, but also created much. Certainly the intent in building it was not to destroy but to create. Would the world be a better place if there was no Hoover Dam? Perhaps. But somehow I think it would be difficult to make a case for doing away with it during Spendi's dinner conversation. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 11:48:00