Rest assured that the more wacko elements of the environmental movement do realize that life will prosper without humanity. They are downright rapturous (pun very much intended) on the subject. Exactly how well life would fare without humanity choking it down is the subject of A best-selling book, "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. The TV documentary "Life After People" on the History Channel. The TV documentary "Aftermath: Population Zero" on the National Geographic Channel. Articles in Discovery, Scientific American, New Scientist, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and on and on.
No, if the Earth is "on the edge of destruction", that's when it's about to crash into another planet, or the Sun, or something. The notion that we humans are capable of initiating the "destruction" of a planet is up there with the notion we can migrate to Mars. We aren't destroying anything, we're changing something though, I'd say anyone who stands up and denies that humans are capable of changing the planet needs a padded room.
Sea levels are going to rise a full quarter of an inch in the next century. I'm so scared I'm wetting my pants.
If you say so. Just for the record, it was just the only solution to the problem I could come up with. It's a ridiculous scenario however and will never happen.
What about the moon crashing into earth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's really hilarious how people get all upset all of a sudden when it's about them being killed instead of the animals. You deny the greenhouse effect, I don't. There 's your difference. It's just a hypothetical, lighten the fuck up. Oh, and my morals are just fine, probably better than most peoples morals on this site.
Thought for the day: Economists are like passengers who have convinced the Captain that the lookouts need to keep a close watch on the boat's wake pattern, because that's the best way to tell if she's moving ahead in a nice straight line.
LOL. There is no such thing as fossil fuel. And the idea that 40% of CO2 is man made is absolutely ridiculous. Less than 1% is man made. FYI photosynthesis of CO2 is necessary in order to breathe.
If there's no such thing as fossil fuel, is there such a thing as fuel? Does it do anything, or we just call it fuel, it doesn't have to? Oh right, there's all that "products of combustion" thingamy. FYI before photosynthesis, there was no "breathe".
Strictly speaking, we don't really "make" anything, it was all here before we showed up. So all the CO2 up there wasn't made by us, we just sort of assembled it from a kitset, and then let it all get there by itself.
We need the CO2 for plant growth. When CO2 is high, life on Earth is lush. Without it, there will be deserts even if there is enough rainfall.
Bzzzzzt! No, we don't need CO2, plants do. Too much CO2 is a signal for the ice to all melt, and flood the continents. Except that last happened in the Cretaceous when there were two large supercontinental masses, and no glacial episodes. The Ice Ages didn't come along until the landmasses had split up and separated, so both poles now have land at or around them and ice caps form. At least that's all part of the bigger picture, which includes the way the planet recycles carbon - very important cycle that one, next to tectonics, because they sort of go together.
That's the most common theory for how the moon came to be orbiting the earth. It's really hilarious how some people can't see the difference between killing humans and killing animals. I don't deny it at all. I do question the extent to which it is actually responsible for the slight increase in average global temperature we've seen over the past 100 years. I also question our ablility to do anything about for a cost we can afford even if we are responsible. Finally, I question whether the trillions of dollars it would cost is the best use of that money in a world where many people don't even have access to clean water. I happen to believe that ideas have consequences. When someone goes around constantly preaching about how the world would be better off without humans, someone, somewhere just might take them seriously.
It's even more hilarious that some people think there is a difference. I haven't noticed Mother Earth giving us any handouts or special consideration. Could it be the planet treats us just like all the other animals? Maybe we're animals too? Now there's a real gob-smacker.
You can "question" all you want, about the scientific basis - a good place to start would be the peer-reviewed journals, where such questioning has been a hot topic for thirty years and more, and where a general consensus has emerged: the rapid and dramatic accumulation of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion is likely to have some serious effects on the climate, and both the size and the speed of the boost are beyond anything humans have ever experienced. The political side of things remains: given the probabilities and possibilities, what is the sensible response ?
The earth doesn't treat us in any way at all. It's a lump of rock. It gives special consideration to no one. Species come, species go. The earth continues in its orbit completely unaware. The difference is not in how the earth treats us, it's how we treat each other. That a human should value human life above all other really should go without saying. But, apparently, what is blindingly obvious to a two year isn't obvious to you.
