It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: jtrenthacker
Over population is often thrown out as the cause of our woes or future woes but while it is an issue it’s really just a bogeyman thrown out there to deflect from the real issue which is wanton greed. Profit is everything and time and resources are focused on generating as much profit as possible at the cost of the environment and people. It’s attitudes that need to change primarily.
originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
We know for certain that we have had the climate change before, and drastically. We can look at various spots on earth and know based upon the fossil record that portions that are now dry, once was part of the oceans. We know from core samples, ice core samples that areas now covered with many layers of ice and snow, once teemed with wildlife, were covered by old growth forest, and acted as a habitat for humans.
There is no changing the Earths natural cycles, and since life continues we should be able to determine that there is no drastic threat to humanity. The Earth adapts and so do humans. We may need to move from one area to another, we may need to develope better techniques and technology to thrive as we have over the Centuries, but it's not healthy in my opinion to force change on something already changing and adapting for it's own survival, in fact, it's not even possible for us to do this.
Not really an accurate statement.
A. No climate model has been remotely correct to this point in human history so believing it is now, and that we are in great danger is foolish.
A bit. But since we are among the highest per capita producers, we could do better.
C. It does not matter what the US does - our carbon emissions are already dropping.
originally posted by: Lazarus Short
I agree with BrianFlanders and LookingAtMars, except that B. Flanders may live to see a sharp turn to the cold side.
originally posted by: Phage
A bit. But since we are among the highest per capita producers, we could do better.
Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.
originally posted by: Nathan-D
Let's ignore the questions of "if climate change is occurring" and if it is happening, "what is causing it" and consider the situation from the perspective that climate change is actually happening. Let's also suppose that the change is detrimental to life on Earth in general and especially to human beings.
I don't think we can ignore the question of if climate change is occurring and what is causing it. Surely those questions are fundamental to the question of what we are going to do about it? I mean, if the science points towards nature being responsible then there is no point us doing anything about it.
originally posted by: C0bzz
a reply to: yuppa
It's amusing to see people say we should adapt to climate change rather than prevent climate change.
This is proposing to move entire cities and change civilizations instead of building new power plants and using natural resources more wisely.
Maybe we could also remove all border security, and deport illegal immigrants once they're already here.
Maybe we could also remove all police, and set up the police once criminals have taken over.
Maybe we should only set up a fire department once the building is on fire. "It will be easier to adapt" they said.
So which part is "BS"?
originally posted by: 1776IIIV
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck
And lets how about I just turn the tempurature of the sun down a few degrees and make the earth cooler.
Play my song now...