Re-read that post again, Bitter - the part where I mention value statements. Does that give you the right to eradicate all termites on Earth? Who has the right to exist, termites or humans?I thought I had agreed with you that humans are a part of nature, and therefore, what they do is "natural". But just being natural isn't in itself always good. Termites are natural too, and if they infest your house, it will eventually collapse as they eat--and weaken--the structure. — Bitter Crank
Uh.. You do realize that the Chinese govt. filters and controls what it's population sees on the internet, don't you? You need to go there to spread your message, but something tells me that you only care enough about the environment to preach to those that need to hear it the least, and only if the environment (termites) doesn't affect your life.My sublime thought is available to the Chinese via the Internet. I am sure there hang on every word. — Bitter Crank
Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. aren't biological in nature either, but they are still natural. You are making a distinction that isn't really there. New non-biological elements are made naturally inside stars. How is that different from the things that humans make? As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing.You seem to be saying that climate change is natural because human beings are, well, natural and that all this fuss about man-made climate change is barking up the wrong tree.
However vehicles, factories, nuclear powerplants, etc. are not in any form of biological relationship with the ecosystem. There is not even a hint of it. The relationship (if you can call it that) between man-made artefacts and nature is a one-way street and it's jammed with garbage trucks loading tons of toxic pollutants.
Therefore, there's a significant difference between man-made artefacts and natural things. This difference has major consequences for the enviroment. — TheMadFool
No. It's driven by China driving down the costs of labor and allowing it's people get paid next to nothing for the work they do all in an effort to steal manufacturing power from the US.Actually it makes a lot of difference. A Dutch invention could be exported and used by other countries, for instance. A county can inspire others for demonstrating that co2 reduction and growth are possible (oh wait, the USA and China did exactly that).
And the amount of pollution China creates is largely driven by market demand in the West. So "blaming" them as solely responsible in a global economy is a bit silly. It is global warming after all. — Benkei
As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing. — Harry Hindu
Right, it's rhythmic. CO2 drops during southern hemisphere summer, if I recall correctly, and goes up in the winter. — Mongrel
I think it does matter. — TheMadFool
Does that give you the right to eradicate all termites on Earth? — Harry Hindu
Who has the right to exist, termites or humans? — Harry Hindu
You have to realize that value statements are always subjective, while what I'm saying is from a far more objective viewpoint — Harry Hindu
No. It's driven by China driving down the costs of labor and allowing it's people get paid next to nothing for the work they do all in an effort to steal manufacturing power from the US. — Harry Hindu
Volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, wildfires, etc. aren't biological in nature either, but they are still natural. You are making a distinction that isn't really there. New non-biological elements are made naturally inside stars. How is that different from the things that humans make? As I said before, we put CO2 in the environment just by breathing. — Harry Hindu
Like...?Your replies are sometimes loaded with a lot more subjective value statements than they are objective viewpoints. — Bitter Crank
Well, it is kind of hard to pick up on humor without being in person. There are those that resort to character assassination when they don't have an argument to make, You must be one of those that veers off topic and tries to make light of things when they don't have an argument to make.Your sense of humor is a pit pinched as well. My comment on the Chinese was clearly self-deprecating. — Bitter Crank
Of course it does, that is if you want to remain consistent.Yes, volcanoes, quakes, tornadoes, etc. are natural. So, what? That doesn't imply we shouldn't classify dangers to the environment into the categories man-made and natural. — TheMadFool
Of course it does, that is if you want to remain consistent. — Harry Hindu
http://thesolutionsproject.org/
I'm curious what everyone thinks about this — MonfortS26
Right. So maybe it's not so much the CO2, but the massive deforestation that is happening. — Harry Hindu
Scott Pruitt, Donald Trump’s head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, has dismissed a basic scientific understanding of climate change by denying that carbon dioxide emissions are a primary cause of global warming.
Pruitt said on Thursday that he did not believe that the release of CO2, a heat-trapping gas, was pushing global temperatures upwards.
“I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he told CNBC.
I think one reason for the shift in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" is that the latter is less controversial; — aletheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.