Man made Global Warming

[Andre]

Hey big guy I said pollution is bad and I care about the planet and the outdoors.


I just don't think Global Warming or Climate Change is man made....it's fucking ridiculous. If humans had never made fire or built buildings or driven cars or anything that pollutes then the climate would still change it ALWAYS has and it ALWAYS will.

The Earth is an ever changing place and life is sometimes harsh and violent but there has almost ALWAYS been life on Earth. All you guys forget about evolution when this global warming talk comes up WHY? Didn't we evolve

Obviously not.

[El Kabong]

Obviously not.

Thanks Andre, maybe everyone needs another refill of the Al Gore KOOL AID

[Andre]

Its all a play on words.climate change ,global warming,pollutants.
take your pick they do overlap and they do have to be addressed its like saying I fucked you, you caught crabs but its your fault you picked me up and you rode me,so Im off to buy a bigger dick.

I heard there was a situation in maybe Mexico city where there was a few days of no pollution for some reason i FORGET WHY ,BUT THEY RACED DOWN THERE AND MEASUured the whatever they do and found that the radiation was extemly dangerous and the thought occured that we have balanced things out we HAve deleted the ozone layer with carbo fluro whatevers and that allows streams of radiation to kill off our reefs and damage our skin into cancers etc etc ,but we are protected to a great degree by our own pollutants!

[El Kabong]

And so without people, Mexico would cease being hot? and climate change would stop?

[Andre]

And so without people, Mexico would cease being hot? and climate change would stop?

I wouldnt think so bro , but you chose that statment for me, you tell me.

I think if there we no more people; the climate would of course still evolve sperately and still changes would occur. MAybe in time Mexico may freeze over
These changes of course would not then effect our kids and their kids on this planet so theres no point to this side of that line of thought in regards to outcome and its effects on us.

[El Kabong]

I have a bridge I would like to sell you two

[Kirkland Laing]

Even Bush's chief scientific climate advisor admits that there's man-made global warming. A recent study of 928 scientific papers by climate scientists -- crucially, Lyle, people who know what they're talking about -- found that every one of them agreed that there's man-made global warming.

[El Kabong]

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."


- Michael Crichton

[Andre]

"You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There's been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away -- all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time. It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in Arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. It might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears the earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It's powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. Do you think this is the first time that's happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine. When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. A hundred years ago we didn't have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can't imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven't got the humility to try. We've been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we're gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us."


- Michael Crichton

I agree whole heartedly with the above.

I dont get your point that you choose one side or the other to the degree that you can't or wont see that all these issues all over lap and do have effects on us as an organisim here on Earth.

Whats your point other than we can change words around into sentences that can support one side or the other so that your consiouss feels cleaner by concentrating on only one section and by forming an idea that it is then right ,automatically makes the rest of the equasion wrong?
That is one eyed thinking.
Try looking at it as a whole from the middle and out of both eyes using both hemishpheres one analyitical and seeking truth by seeing that reefs are dying off due to ozone depletion, then feeling the truth that this will have effects right through the food chains and into us .
Each side of everything supports each side of everything else including the other side of every issue.
There are truths and falsness on both sides of this particular fence ,take the fence down and see it out of both eyes for once.

P.S. keep your bridge, its single laned.