Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: steelyourfaith
Not enough time has gone by to have a decisive answer on the issue either way, in my opinion. But to think human activity can't have an effect on the environment seems naive.
6 posted on 05/17/2009 6:57:22 AM PDT by mefistofelerevised
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: mefistofelerevised
“Not enough time has gone by to have a decisive answer on the issue either way, in my opinion. But to think human activity can't have an effect on the environment seems naive.”

Look at a photo of earth from space. See all of the people polluting? Driving too big of cars? Having 65 foot yachts that get 1 MPG?

No, you don't because we are a speck on the planet. Enough time HAS gone by - it was MUCH warmer 2000 years ago, then the planet cooled, then warmed up again in the 1100’s, then we went into the ‘mini ice age’

My car, boat jet and addiction to refried beans did nothing to change the temperature of the planet.

If you disagree, perhaps you can see me in Montana flipping the ‘bird’ to those who want to take my money and freedom in the name of this junk science called global warming - or global cooling as that is what we were ‘fighting’ when the first earth day was celebrated.

7 posted on 05/17/2009 7:13:27 AM PDT by Leo Farnsworth (I'm not really Leo Farnsworth...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mefistofelerevised
But to think human activity can't have an effect on the environment seems naive.

I don't think the real issue is that man has "no effect" on the earth's atmosphere.

The issue is one of the "relative effect" of man vs nature.

Do the math. Man's effect is dwarfed by nature. The sheer volume of the atmosphere, area of the earth's surface, area of the surface of the atmosphere at the edge of space, and continuous energy input by the sun dwarf all of man's effects.

The models they cite as showing man changing the climate also show that if man stopped doing what he is doing, it would have a minuscule "correcting" effect. If that is the case, then it means our effect in causing the "anomaly" is also minuscule. Hence, the draconian actions recommended have an enormous price for minuscule effect. In other words, it is a bad deal.

8 posted on 05/17/2009 9:18:34 AM PDT by SteamShovel (When hope trumps reality, there is no hope at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: mefistofelerevised
But to think human activity can't have an effect on the environment seems naive.

Define environment. It's naive if you understand the size and scope of the earth and how small of a footprint humans have on it to think we can change the environment globally. There just ain't enough of us on the planet to have the same effect as termites or simple bacteria both of which outweigh us by hundreds or thousands to one, and they both produce 'greenhouse gasses.'

Yes, humans can foul a local area -- a very local area. But the entire planet??? Not a chance. There just ain't enough of us to do the job.

But bugs can do it which is the only reason we have a breathable atmosphere to begin with. Those little polluting suckers plus those tenacious green things we call grass and weeds and trees create the very air we breathe.

There is no doubt they other far more populous life forms have an effect on the environment, but if humans had to create the same atmosphere, we would be unable to do it. Their ain't enough of us to get the job done.

16 posted on 05/17/2009 5:03:36 PM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson