Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Textcritic · 06-02-2006, 11:05 AM

I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming. What concerns me about this subject is not whether or not it is happening, but how the scientific and political communities have responded to the trend. I am all for protecting environmental "balances" (is there any such thing asa "balance" in nature?), and for ensuring sustainability, but at what cost, and based upon what certainties? I become skeptical when scientists and politicians begin waving their arms and screaming about certain inevitable doom which will doubtlessly occur within the next 100 years because of what they have observed over the last 15.
Consider the following:
• In the late 50's, Carl Sagan and a host of other scientists led a campaign and compiled copious amounts of evidence to suggest that the effects of "nuclear winter" would destroy our planet. The science behind the claims has long since been debunked.
• In 1976, capitalizing upon growing concerns about global climatological trends, Lowell Ponte wrote his best-selling The Cooling in which he used scientific evidence to support his position that "since the 1940s the northern half of our planet has been cooling rapidly.... Mass global famine in our lifetime, perhaps even within a decade, if current cooling trends continue." It never happened.
• In 1991, after Saddam Husein began setting fires to the oil fields in Kuwait, the emminent aforementioned Dr. Sagan cited scientific reasoning to suggest that the planet would experience a full year without summer and sunshine as a result. Summer arrived on schedule.
The planet appears to be warming, and human interaction with the environment appears to be having an effect. Through MASS SPECULATION members of the scientific community have PROJECTED catastrophic results of this trend, very similar to the predictions of Sagan about nuclear winter; similar to Paul Ehrlich about the population explosion (which incidently appears to be slowing rapidly) in the 1990's which would devastate the planet; similar to the massive and ridiculous projections which were constantly espoused regarding Y2K. Alarmist positions of this magnatude are short-sighted and irresponsible. And you are kidding yourself if you believe that environmental enthusiasts do not opperate from their own ideological agenda, much like the oil companies and conservative think-tanks.
I personally believe that the truth is to be found somehwhere in the middle. Global warming is happening, and we need to learn how to respond effectively, but this does not mean our planet is doomed. Earth has never experienced a global catastophe (nothing even close to it!) in hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and it is probably an exaggeration to believe that our species wields enough influence to cause one.

06-02-2006, 11:05 AM	#171
Textcritic Acerbic Cyberbully Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: back in Chilliwack Exp:	I personally believe that it would be foolish to suggest that the planet is not currently warming up, or that humans and technology have not contributed to current trends in global warming. What concerns me about this subject is not whether or not it is happening, but how the scientific and political communities have responded to the trend. I am all for protecting environmental "balances" (is there any such thing asa "balance" in nature?), and for ensuring sustainability, but at what cost, and based upon what certainties? I become skeptical when scientists and politicians begin waving their arms and screaming about certain inevitable doom which will doubtlessly occur within the next 100 years because of what they have observed over the last 15. Consider the following: • In the late 50's, Carl Sagan and a host of other scientists led a campaign and compiled copious amounts of evidence to suggest that the effects of "nuclear winter" would destroy our planet. The science behind the claims has long since been debunked. • In 1976, capitalizing upon growing concerns about global climatological trends, Lowell Ponte wrote his best-selling The Cooling in which he used scientific evidence to support his position that "since the 1940s the northern half of our planet has been cooling rapidly.... Mass global famine in our lifetime, perhaps even within a decade, if current cooling trends continue." It never happened. • In 1991, after Saddam Husein began setting fires to the oil fields in Kuwait, the emminent aforementioned Dr. Sagan cited scientific reasoning to suggest that the planet would experience a full year without summer and sunshine as a result. Summer arrived on schedule. The planet appears to be warming, and human interaction with the environment appears to be having an effect. Through MASS SPECULATION members of the scientific community have PROJECTED catastrophic results of this trend, very similar to the predictions of Sagan about nuclear winter; similar to Paul Ehrlich about the population explosion (which incidently appears to be slowing rapidly) in the 1990's which would devastate the planet; similar to the massive and ridiculous projections which were constantly espoused regarding Y2K. Alarmist positions of this magnatude are short-sighted and irresponsible. And you are kidding yourself if you believe that environmental enthusiasts do not opperate from their own ideological agenda, much like the oil companies and conservative think-tanks. I personally believe that the truth is to be found somehwhere in the middle. Global warming is happening, and we need to learn how to respond effectively, but this does not mean our planet is doomed. Earth has never experienced a global catastophe (nothing even close to it!) in hundreds of thousands of years of human history, and it is probably an exaggeration to believe that our species wields enough influence to cause one.