I see the earth changing (and thats normal and ok) but I see massive human influence and loss of biodiversity. I notice a change in the weather and a change in the forests where I live and grew up. I understand nothing is constant but change but I also understand that 6 billion humans are too many and nature does not let any other living creature overpopulate as we have. How can climate change be denied? Does a scientist need to confirm what you can see when you just open your eyes? Isnt all science relative? Truth today was not truth 50/500 years ago, nor will it be in 200 years from now. Nature has rules, and we have bent, broken and smashed them. Every action has a reaction.
2006-12-13 20:28:55 · 10 answers · asked by Solution Seeker 2 in Environment
If you were an executive of an automobile, oil, plastics, airline, etc etc, company you would believe in profit more than global warming...
2006-12-13 20:35:10 · answer #1 · answered by heidavey 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How can climate change be denied? I don't think that that is really your question. Is anyone is denying that climate changes? I believe what you are really asking is how can human-caused climate change be denied? If you think about it, these two things are really completely different. You should rephrase your question if you want to get reasonable responses.
I think it is very reasonable to require a scientist to confirm our observations especially when they are based on our own memories. You say you have noticed changes in the weather and forests where you live. Exactly what are these changes. Perhaps you remember it raining more, or snowing more, or maybe seeing more red-breasted nuthatches. Unless you kept notes and have some numbers to show and can reasonably defend those observations. No one in their right mind is going to pay attention to you.
Isn't all science relative? I don't even understand what you are asking here. Relative to what?
Truth today is exactly what it was 500 years ago and what it will be in 200 years. You are mistaken in this belief. What has changed is what we believe to be true. People used to believe that the earth was a flat plane, this was never true. And universal belief in it did not make it true. The earth was still a sphere despite what people believed.
Another example is human-caused climate change. You clearly believe this is true, but that belief does not make it true. You are obliged to prove that it is true. To do this you have to produce some numbers some observations. You have to demonstrate that these observations are a reflection of reality. And you have to produce the error of your measurements, the standard deviation. Your claims have to be shown to be consistent with this data. And if your data is biased, not sufficiently accurate, or doesn't even come close to measuring what your trying to show. You need to start again.
Nature does not have rules in the sense you are implying. Natural laws are unbreakable. No matter how hard you try you aren't going to go faster than light, you're never going to make perpetual motion machine, and you're never going to go back in time. You seem to be implying that nature provides some sort of moral guideline for telling us how to live. Considering that a basic tenant of evolution is if you destroy your competition your offspring will survive and that's a good thing. I don't think this is a sound basis for morality.
I believe that by action, reaction you mean cause, effect. Newton, who you are paraphrasing, had a definite definition of what an action was. He also used the phrase equal and opposite. Somehow I don't think this is what you mean. The problem with complicated systems like the earth is that when we initiate a cause we don't know exactly what the effect is going to be. Also, we never know if the effect is produced by the cause we believe.
As for 6 billion humans being to many, I agree. Exactly, what would you like to do about it?
2006-12-14 05:59:16 · answer #2 · answered by Michael M 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Climate change itself is undeniable, it has always existed. Every 650 years or so the Earth goes through a cycle of heating and cooling. The most recent cooling started about 1500 and ended about 1850. the coldest year on record is 1826. We are in the warming part of the cycle and may expect it to last another 150 years. The exact timing of the cycle is unclear because other events seem to have influence on it. So global warming is not the issue; rather the question is: what effect is man having on global warming? The answer is not only unknown, it is unknowable. Accelerated "Greenhouse effects" may exacerbate warming, global dimming would be expected to result in cooling. Clearing forests has a cooling effect, regrowing them has a warming effect. Unfortunately all of these things impact on the belief systems that some people hold. As for too many people? How long is a piece of string? This comes down to the share of resources between man and some aspects of nature - a value judgement. Whenever controls are removed a species can proliferate at the expense of other species; often causing extinctions. Nature is is quite uncaring in this respect.
You may not much like this answer but it is as near to the truth as I can come with the present information.
2006-12-14 04:58:58 · answer #3 · answered by Gary K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the 70's it was in vogue for climate cooling. Newsweek and Time had articles about the coming Iceage. We as humans do not live long enough to see cycles that we do not know about. We are dinky in this universe, we are not bad enough to change the climate with all our cars on our strongest day.
2006-12-14 04:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree, and it is because of people like "Bella" that answered above that people have such a closed mind-set on the subject. What can we do about it...? That is a lazy man's approach to it. We need to start making long term changes in the way we live or it will be our kids and our grandkids that have to suffer the consequences.
2006-12-14 05:05:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I suppose I would choose not to beilive in climate change if I were a moron.
I suppose I would say I don't beilive in climate change if I were a politician.
It's not that all these big, wealthy, important people don't know or don't belive in these things.
They just don't care. When the **** hits the fan, they'll be on their private jet to Tahiti within an hour.
It's all us that have to worry.
Wake.
Up.
2006-12-14 04:42:50 · answer #6 · answered by socialdeevolution 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you mean population control as only through a scientific eye can see. the overview. I see everyone being crowded together or rounded up, contained, confined because some minds just want to be left alone in this world. I see the scientist putting chemicals in our air, water, food, minds, clouds and all aspects of life. climate change they created to have a world all to themselves.
2006-12-14 04:37:07 · answer #7 · answered by Conway 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All I know is that it is 50 in Vermont in the middle of December and Florida is stealing our precious snow.
2006-12-14 05:22:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
vote green
2006-12-15 02:04:10 · answer #9 · answered by Ihavequestions 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you,But what can we do?
2006-12-14 04:31:08 · answer #10 · answered by Bella 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋