Just for the sake of knowledge, and darn this stupid necro, NO, I have already told you the Andromeda-Milky Way clash is estimated to take place billions of years from now, not your magically pulled 6000 years. Research before posting.
There is a way out of everything. First of all it sickens me when people say "Screw the environment and live in the now." Its that kind of thinking that is causing global warming! Get up off your lazy but and do something! The ice-caps melting wont be as drastic as the whole world flooding, but every continent on earth would be significantly smaller XD. So if you live on an island like me, or on the coast, you might wanna move inland. While i love the idea of zombies, i doubt that it will be anything that awesome. Most likely if we were to be wiped out because of a sickness, it will be a mutated strain of the common cold. It will be totally resistant to all of our medicines, and become deadly. Giant meteor theory, i also like this one. Much more plausible then some of the others, and unfortunately, any theories on how to get rid of a giant ball of rock hurtling towards us at millions of miles an hour, is just that, a theory. None of them have been tested or even sound too plausable. And if we do survive as a species till the expansion of the sun, hopefully billions of years from now we have expanded throughout the galaxy and to others. So while the loss of the planet will be regrettable, no one has to die.
Yeah. Admittedly i probably shouldn't have used the word causing, so i will change it to: Its that kind of thinking that is stopping the world from preventing global warming. Its great when 100 people get together to try to make a difference, but when one other person on earth says screw it, everyone else who is on the fence says the same.
Its that kind of thinking that is stopping the world from preventing global warming.
That is no better than your original statement I'm afraid. There is no evidence that man has caused global warming, and no evidence that any action we take can prevent the warming and cooling of the planet at this time.
There is evidence however that the warming of the globe that is occurring could prevent the start of a new ice age, which we're due quite soon.
Humanity might not be the one true cause of climate-change but surely one must recognize we're contributing to it? If we can't agree upon how much then at least agree that we are.
Depends on when my wife decides to make me quit smoking...
Realistically though, we can't really know for certain. There are so many variables which could sway what the greatest threat to our existence will be. Basically anywhere between tomorrow and about 4 billion years from now would be valid hypotheses.
There is a good deal of scientists who have reached a different conclusion though, that CO2 isn't driving global temperatures. Whilst the debate continues, there is no evidence that categorically proves one way or another that man is responsible for rising temperatures.
At the same time, the scientific community can not agree whether we, human kind, can reduce or increase temperatures through our actions.
There is a good deal of scientists who have reached a different conclusion though, that CO2 isn't driving global temperatures.
As far as I've understood, the debate has kinda moved away from solely looking at CO2 (or at least it should have). It certainly has an influence but probably is only a co-agent; methane for example is thought to be much more nocive to the atmosphere than CO2. Now is there too much methane in the air or not, and where would it come from, and what about other agents; this should be looked at closer.
At the same time, the scientific community can not agree whether we, human kind, can reduce or increase temperatures through our actions.
We certainly can, but how strong is our influence? Some say the climate is changing anyway, others are putting all the blame on us.. I think it's something intermediate, climate is changing but we push the whole thing a little too.
As far as I've understood, the debate has kinda moved away from solely looking at CO2 (or at least it should have). It certainly has an influence but probably is only a co-agent; methane for example is thought to be much more nocive to the atmosphere than CO2. Now is there too much methane in the air or not, and where would it come from, and what about other agents; this should be looked at closer.
Maybe I'm a little behind then. The last thing I was reading involved the ice core samples that showed CO2 reacting to temperature rises.
We certainly can, but how strong is our influence? Some say the climate is changing anyway, others are putting all the blame on us.. I think it's something intermediate, climate is changing but we push the whole thing a little too.
Again, I may be a little behind with it. I was under the impression they were still debating it. I read some very heated debates recently, although many scientists both for and against are now concentrating on the political aspects. The quote that is often refered to is:
Weâve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
Maybe I'm a little behind then. The last thing I was reading involved the ice core samples that showed CO2 reacting to temperature rises.
Well I dunno how far they've got debating, but like I said, we shouldn't focus only on CO2 like many still do.
Again, I may be a little behind with it. I was under the impression they were still debating it.
Oh, they're certainly still debating it, this was more my point of view I gave.
[quote]We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993[/quote] This really is an interesting point of view. And correct I think, whether we have a problem now or will have a problem later, we should do something to prevent it anyway (I think some people even said we've passed the date of 'no return', whatever they meant by that. Probably a lot of people would disagree with them^^)
This really is an interesting point of view. And correct I think, whether we have a problem now or will have a problem later, we should do something to prevent it anyway (I think some people even said we've passed the date of 'no return', whatever they meant by that. Probably a lot of people would disagree with them^^)
From a resource management point of view, we should be acting and making preparations for what the planet can throw at us in terms of extreme climate changes.
I think where the argument falls down is when politicians decide to tax on the basis of scientific evidence when we're still only at the theory stage and it is all still be debated.
In the UK the government of the time very nearly introduced something called the Carbon Credit Card. It was meant as a way of taxing UK citizens on the basis that the more carbon we produced, the higher our taxes. The very idea went down like a lead balloon and when the global economic crisis began, the idea was dropped, much like a lead balloon ironically.
