Posted: 05-15-2014 10:58 AM
With you on this one Fan - I thought I read a few years back that temps throughout the solar system were rising. Kinda hard to explain all of that on man's influence....
The Next Generation
https://www.fantasticforum.com/1res/
Talk about human arrogance. Like it's for us to decide there's a 'normal' temperature for Mother Earth? Is a global atmospheric average really representative of what's actually going on with the old gal anyway? So what about her deep-inside internals? We can't even say for sure just what her guts are made of or how they work do we...?Cherry Kelly wrote: Part of the main problem is that we as humans did not have the high quality ability to record temperatures with the accuracy we now have, nor other new technology we have in this time period.
SquidInk wrote: Wait...
I usually find Carlin to be nearly flawless. This is an exception. Of course 90% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Entire humanless epochs have come and gone, including life explosions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion ), and mass extinctions (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events ). It's irrelevant.
When we talk about "climate change", or more broad environmental change, we can not uncouple the conversation from the specific question of "human induced environmental change". After all humans exist now, unlike before. So before humans arrived, it's safe to say that humanity was not a factor in previous explosions/contractions/climates. It's different now, and as responsible people we need to ensure that we are not contributing in negative ways, when possible.
IMHO insofar there is a 'human induced' part, seems to me it needs be seen AS a significant contributor to climate change, otherwise if it's NOT our fault what recourse is there? That is to say, if our CO2 output IS what's going to turn Earth into an inhospitable/uninhabitable hell-hole, well yeah, by all means let's all definitely cut back on that -SquidInk wrote: When we talk about "climate change", or broader environmental change, we can not uncouple the conversation from the specific question of "human induced environmental change". After all humans exist now, unlike before. So before humans arrived, it's safe to say that humanity was not a factor in previous explosions/contractions/climates. It's different now, and as responsible people we need to ensure that we are not contributing in negative ways, when possible.
...
But let's keep this all in perspective, shall we? Down with Hannity-esque, broad brush talking points & low information sloganeering. Up with smart folks (like us) looking at these issues with common sense. I get a feeling I am missing some layers or subtleties in Carlin's piece.
Have you heard of Professor Irwin Corey?kbot wrote: Oh, nice. Now we are going to have college professors (of ALL people) deciding who goes to jail - especially if we disagree with their flawed scientific studies........
Our kids can't read, write or engage in critical analysis (thanks to our education system), and now these people want to branch out into law enforcement?????
Raggedyann wrote: The only way we can really know if climate change is being caused by humans is if the coast lines actually do flood and cities are destroyed. How else can we know which side is right? Only time will tell because the PTB will never err on the side of caution in any meaningful way.
Because, God.BenSlain wrote: Why would this show it's man made?
For sure and no doubt about it, THERE'S an answer that is an answer.SquidInk wrote: Because, God.