Posted on 11/29/2006 7:34:31 AM PST by Anti-Bubba182
You know the drill.
"The survivors will be those humans that can make their way to refuges or Arctic places and survive there."
Far away from the equator. In the chilly nordic climes, where roam the Canadians, Scandahooves, Aussies, New Zealanders, So. Africans, lotsa Ruskies.
Compare to various equatorial species.
Things may be okay, after all.
Next challenge: Last 200,000 to see this all.
Correct. He is a technician with a fifty year-old degree he never used, and delusions of grandiosity. He has no known peer-reviewed research, only junkscience books. and no data to back up his crank theories. In short he is a career tinkerer who makes up stuff as he goes along. "Independent Scientist " my a**. He's as much a scientist as Algore.
Guess that says it all as to how much it is caused by human consumption. zilch.
If they ever try and bring that asinine Koyoto Treaty back up for discussion it needs to be counteracted in full force, that thing would be a backbreaker in a lot of ways. I wish someone with clout would do the response documentary to Al Gore's piece of contrived, junk-science garbage.
'Tis funny; one of my neighbors asked me about this over the weekend, too.
It doesn't hurt Lovelock's public profile any to make crazy predictions that can't be verified -- if human population does drop to 500 million, by the time it happens I doubt anyone will be able to determine that Lovelock predicted it, and the situation would be so dire that none of the survivors would care.
Having said that -- I liken the relationship between Earth and humanity to the same relationship between my family and my house. There are a lot of systems in the house that we take for granted, which make the "livability" of the house comfortable, allowing a routine performance of family activities within the house. If one of those systems becomes significantly impaired, livability becomes more difficult and requires a greater expenditure of energy to compensate.
Imagine if the water system became contaminated with a dangerous toxin, with sufficient toxicity that exposure to the water had to be dramatically minimized. Drinking water would have to be imported; cleaning (clothing, personal, housewares) would have to be done elsewhere; waste removal would have to be done elsewhere; preparation of meals would be affected; etc. We would probably conclude that living in the house under such conditions was unacceptably difficult, so we'd find other, livable conditions until the problem was fixed (f it could be fixed).
So what if we couldn't move? What if the house was literally the only place we could live? Then we'd have no choice but to come up with some way to fix the house environment -- i.e., remove the contaminant from the water.
One of my points should be obvious from the previous paragraph. Speaking more to address Lovelock, humanity's presence on the Earth is tied to a number of important ecosystem components. If some of these components become impaired, then the Earth's livability will be affected. If one of the critical systems gets really impaired, then a lot of people will be affected and significant human suffering could ensue.
As a final "gotcha" point, think how dependent we are on insect pollination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.