It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As I said before, I am a Christian, and therefore I believe in Jesus Christ and believe there is an afterlife. That being said, I also do believe in evolution, and the scientific mechanisms that formed the universe, and hence our solar system. So I now understand at least where you are coming from in regards to the religious implications of climate change. That being said though, I don't believe in climate change because I'm a Christian. I just don't believe the numbers and the science in regards to what had been concluded so far. But I'm not one of those types that refuses to comply with caring for this planet just because I Believe in Christianity. I agree with you that those types of people can hurt the well-being of the planet if they don't take care of it.
Now, believe it or not, and you may be surprised considering what I've said so far, I do care about our planet and would probably be considered an environmentalist when it comes to cleaning this planet up. While I don't believe that human activity affects climate temperature and CO2 levels that much, I do believe in cleaning up the planet for the sake of improving quality of life. I want a cleaner planet for the benefits of breathing cleaner air and not risking cancer and other diseases. So I take a common sense approach when it comes to environmental issues. It just so happens I don't think we affect the temperature of the climate as much as some people think we do. But I do keep religion out of the equation when it comes to this and other scientific issues. I do believe God has a hand in what makes the universe and the planets run, but it's still the scientific mechanisms that have contributed to evolution the way they have, if that makes sense.
No, as I said above I do keep religion and science separate. While I do believe in the Bible, I also think humans would be totally irresponsible not to care for the planet. But again as I stated above, it's not my belief in religion that's leads me to my conclusions about climate change.
James, I'm a right-winged American as well, but not all conservatives believe in man made climate change. I'm just curious as to what you believe is the proof that we are causing climate change. And not just some correlation between the number of people on the planet and an increase in CO2 levels. I'm just looking for you to prove to me that it's not some other force that can be causing this increase.
Similarly, in the case of climate change, common sense should suggest that we are harming our environment, yet many say otherwise, or downplay the possible effects, and again big business benefits. Whether it be industrialization (especially of countries like China, India, Brazil and the like with lots of people), population growth in general, or harmful waste products, eventually there has to be consequences. Such consequences may not even be fully decipherable at this stage. As an example, industrialization could be impacting the smallest organisms in the sea and on land in ways that we don't know about, but any cellular mutations there could have magnified spill on effects on other living things.
In this case, as with cigarettes smoking/cancer, or with autism/vaccinations, I prefer to err on the side of caution. In other words, despite no conclusive evidence to suggest a strong link, I prefer to act on the basis that a link could be more influential than currently perceived, based on correlation & anecdotal observations, and go on from there until the evidence catches up. It's just a preference, but I can understand how others may prefer to wait for hard conclusive evidence. Hopefully by that point, the cancer either hasn't already set in, or is at least still curable.
I wholeheartedly agree that humans can effect the environment in other ways (more cities, pollution, food production, etc.). But when it comes to climate, I just think humans, as many as there are on this planet, are just too small a variable to effect the temperature of the planet.
And why am I not one of the intelligent people? Because I disagree with you?
I totally agree! I'm far more concerned with the filth that needs to be cleaned up on this planet than a supposed spike in CO2 and global temperatures. And what a lot of people fail to realize is more CO2 is a good thing. Plants need CO2 to survive, and more CO2 brings on more plant life and greenery, and helps replenish the forests. And that is a good thing considering how much deforestation has taken place to accommodate more people on this planet.
I certainly won't claim that Earth was the epitome of stability before man and his industrialisation came. A runaway greenhouse effect most likely happened on Venus too, without a flourishing industry to be its direct cause. Chaos theory predicts that there's always a chance, however small, that the flimsiest, silliest ripple in the water could set in motion a whole series of events which might have effects of cosmic proportions. The big bang itself might have originated from one virtual particle jumping into existence according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for all we know. Hence, we can't be absolutely sure that man is the cause of climate change.
However, we can't be sure that he isn't either. In fact, there's good reason to assume a direct link exists. An alarming demographic growth, combined with an alarming increase in fuel consumption, combined with an alarming increase in deforestation... all these things neatly correlate to the rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere. But of course, if there's a cut open body in the room, did the guy with the bloody knife in his hand do it? I can never be sure. If a heavy smoker dies of lung cancer, did the smoking cause the cancer? I can never be sure. If a biker is hit by a car and instantly dies, did the drunk driver really cause the accident or did the biker perform a dangerous manoeuvre? We can never be sure. So you see, @A_Kristatos, I have those thoughts too. We pollute, we cut away the rainforest, we consume... but climate change may be induced by a gazillion of factors all together. Ever the sober minded scientist, I'm brutally honest about these things when discussing climate change with my pupils.
But...
While the evidence of man's involvement in climate change may be far less compelling than what Al Gore taught us ten years ago, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to support the basic notion that we are making a difference and not in a good way and that any effort to stop pollution, to stop the overpopulation of the planet and to stop deforestation, is worth it.
Incidentally, if I'm allowed one dogma - and I generally find dogmas terribly unpleasant - I'd say the root of all of what's going wrong is overpopulation.
You aren't here to discuss, you are here to show us how much more you know than we do. But all you seem to know is what you've heard on right wing American radio... =))
Yeah, I agree. We'll see what happens there with time.
Great points Darth. I'm not saying that humans aren't influencing climate change and CO2 levels at all, I just think it's miniscule at best compared to the other forces at work here. And I truly appreciate your rational discussion and logic in discussing all potential causes of what may be causing CO2 levels to rise.
Like I said above, I do agree that there are other reasons to clean up the planet. If it helps the climate, fine, but I too am far more concerned with pollution and overpopulation of the planet for reasons that go beyond the climate change debate. And the ironic thing about deforestation is that higher CO2 levels may actually help the planet to restore more plant life at a faster rate.
Oh, thanks for the compliment Chris, I think.
I'll say it again, if you feel my disagreement with you stems from a lack of intelligence on my part (which you just took off the table since you do feel that I'm intelligent) or due to a "superiority complex", well, I honestly don't know how we can have a serious debate. Take a look at my response to some of the posters above, and you will see that if someone engages in a rational debate, I will respond with the same amount of respect and professionalism that they showed me. However, if you want to continue to post smart aleck responses, well then I will continue to respond accordingly. If you want to keep up this game, then have at it, but don't expect too many people to take you seriously.
From a cleanliness standpoint, yes. Not sure if it has a huge impact on climate though. That is a different animal altogether.
;)
No, I'm actually of middle age and very well versed scientifically. But as usual, you fit perfectly well into that category of people who when someone disagrees with them, the person they disagree with is "uninformed, unqualified, and misled". And inevitably they pull out of the discussion all together. Well, that's your prerogative. Sorry you decided to end it, but you obviously are pretty set on your opinions on this.
:D
That said, all I can say with regards to climate change is the first paragraph in my original comment (maybe with some borrowing of DarthDimi's thoughts). You're right, I don't have any data that firmly links land use/population/amount of industry to increased levels of CO2 that we wouldn't be otherwise experiencing. However if you zoom in on a local scale, the cause-effect type relationships can become more apparent/suggestive.
When you get right down to it, belief is just that...one's belief doesn't necessarily come from fact, but rather as a result from experiences. I guess I just fall in that category: that from what I've learned and experienced, I am led to the belief that a statistically significant portion of climate change is likely linked to man's efforts. Also, it may be worth noting that my comments were not trying to influence anyone's belief, but rather just to provide an alternate opinion.
data collecting:
You presume the data used by climatologists comes from measurements in the last 200 years in which humans actively measured local temperatures. This data, obviously, is used. But isn't everything. Like trees, ice and snow on the poles is laid down every year. These ice layers have chemical structures that tell us how warm/cold it had been on average that year. As you can probably imagine, a layer of ice which has had a higher temperature on the surface has a different structure and thickness then ice of colder years. This is then also compared to other sources (like tales of warm/ cold years, etc.).
There are undoubtedly even more sources, but I know about this one. Be sure though that we have proper information about the climate on earth for at least the last 3000 years.
Sun flares:
This was one more argument that I used to think was a good one, as I too wasn't convinced. However, about 4 to 5 years ago (I'm really bad at that, counting back which year it was exactly) my ex and me were actually paying a lot of attention, as that year had an increadable increase of solar activity. You'd expect that to be a huge influance, we expected hot summers, warm winters and a lot of rain. But, compared to the previous years, there was no noticable difference. I think it was even just a little bit chillier then the year before.
warm summers, how hot was this year?:
You mentioned that 'winters are still cold, and summers warm'. And yes, they are. But there's a difference. If the temperature is, on average, every day one degree warmer then the year before, we as humans may not notice this, but the planet does. It means the ice caps on the poles grow less during the winter and lose more through the summer. All that water has to go somewhere. So oceans rise. Perhaps just a centimetre (and come on, how much is that eh!) but think again, as an engeneer, on the sheer volume of water that's now added to the oceans. The first year this isn't a problem, neither is it the next year. But in 20, 30 years, it makes a huge difference, as the process accellerates. And here's the problem: if it's us that started it all, there's no way we can stop it. It's a ball you push off a mountain. In the beginning, if you stop pushing, you might be lucky enough that it slows down. But there's a point of no return.
mre CO2 is good for plants:
No, it isn't. It won't make them grow any faster. They need water. There's allready plenty of CO2 in the air. Just like we only use 2% of the oxigen in the air to breath, we don't grow any faster if you put more oxigen in. But you can actually overdose on the stuff.
Again, I've always been very sceptical about climate change. How do you know the added pollution is key to such huge changes? Well, first off we do produce quite a lot. Perhaps not here in Europe or the US, but check out China. Have you ever been there? Can you imagine what you need to produce for 1.2 billion people? And the sad thing is, they use old fashioned (or should I say: less advanced) technologies on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
And second: perhaps that small push we're giving here is actually enough to make this ball roll. There are many precarious balances on this planet, and in the universe. Why would this one be so rugged? Because it's so big? So are planets. So are stars. So is that 747 airliner in the air, flying in formation with a jet. And there's very little necessary to make them collide and bring them both down.
Great points James. But my issue is if we make public policy based on beliefs, and not hard facts, that's going down a slippery slope, to say the least. That's why I think we really need to make sure we have our facts straight. By our facts, I'm talking about scientists and politicians.
Great post Commander. However, see my post above regarding policy based on beliefs rather than facts. Also, of course we have years where global temperatures go up, and put a tremendous amount of water in the oceans. But at the same time we also have cooler years which may drop the water levels. I'd hate to have people pay a lot of taxes for a problem that might not even exist.
And regarding your point about the huge influence humans are on this planet. I'm sure they are, but despite that, humans may still only account for such a tiny fraction of what makes our planet tick. You said the precarious balances of this planet are due to mechanics that are so big, but I'm not sure even humans have the power to drastically change them. Yes we can dirty our planet pretty easily, but I don't know if we can change the climate as easily. Just my opinion.
I totally agree about the ice cores. But there are plenty of documented cores on record that show there was much warmer climates than what we are going through now in the past. And there were probably not too many people if any on the planet at that time. So scientists can say we have "100%" evidence that the climate is definitely warming at a drastic rate all they want. But reality is we don't have all the evidence, and we don't have all the answers.
Poisonous metals? Are you talking about all the exhaust we are putting in the atmosphere?
To put it this way: no, scientists can't be sure 100%. Not on this matter, as we know too little about climatic changes in the past. Still, we do know rising CO2 levels are a major part of climatic change. They have been in those earlier warm periods as well. Another fact is that we, as humans on this planet, have been 1. emitting far more CO2 gasses into our atmosphere then would naturally occur, and 2. have been destroying forests that would absorb those gasses. Take a look at Google maps, and put on satalite imaging. Then look at, i.e, Brazil. All the light grean area (over half the country) used to be as dark green as the Amazone. And then remember Brazil is about 4 times bigger then you see on the map (that's what you get when you make a globe flat). Look at Africa, it's the same story. Indonesia- Java used to bee utterly and completely dark green. All you can see now are rice paddies.
Yes, before you ask, that's been going on before the industrial revolution, but it's the scale that's different now. In 1900 the world had an estimated total population of 1,7 (1,65) billion people. In 2012 we passed the 7 billion mark. That's fivefold in an industrial era in which we an masse destroyed our forests and burnt most of them, putting the CO2 back in the atmosphere, which can't be picked up by those trees anymore as they're not replaced.
You say you think we're not capable of changing our climate. I say the chances are stacked against you, as we're very well capable of destroying more then half the worlds forest, which play such a pivotal roll in this process. And adding insult ti injury, we proceed to burn as many fuels with stored CO2 as we can.
Again, is it that bad? Well, chances are it is that bad. Can we take those chance? Well, yes, many will say. But those are people living far away from the danger zones. For me? My family, my country? No, we can't take those chances. And, as we're living on the same planet, we'd be very much obliged if you didn't either.