Jeeez. Climate is climate. Evolution of species is evolution of species. They may affect each other but that's about it as far as the relationship goes.
Oil sands, green groups unlikely allies in push for carbon tax
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
It was eradicated with a global vaccination program, officially in the late 70's. A disease of cows is another that was eradicated, just last summer it was announced that rinderpest was the second disease to be eradicated by humans. The etiologic agents for these diseases only exists inside biohazard labs.
Not naturally. Infectious disease requires an interaction between host, pathogen, and environment. They are no longer associated with one another.
Anyways, you can quibble with the WHO, you seem to believe yourself to be an expert in everything, but smallpox is a problem that was fixed by throwing money at a problem.
I'm not in denial, I just don't think it's that big of a deal.. seriously. The earth goes through warming and cooling stages all the time.
Northern Alberta used to be a tropical rainforest a million years ago. That's why we have the Oil Sands.
It's a cycle, that maybe, just maybe we should be messing with..
Like I said, quibble with the WHO then, I don't care really. There is no disease in any population of humans anywhere.
Yeah, but what does that have to do with the discussion? You said, "Name ONE instance where throwing money around has fixed an issue." I gave you two. Now you are simply nitpicking about details, but the FACT remains that the river, the atmosphere, etc. are far better off now than they were.
I didn't. They are two different processes. I guess you haven't figured that out yet.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Evolution and climate are not games.
Either way, throwing money at it fixed the problem. Smallpox may still exist but it does not infect anyone. If you'd said, "Name ONE instance where throwing money around has eliminated an issue." instead of "Name ONE instance where throwing money around has fixed an issue." then the discussion would have taken a different route, but you didn't. You are nitpicking about minor details in some sort of manner to vindicate yourself after making stupid remarks.
Yes, it does, but because of human influence this particular stage in the cycle has been extended.
Maybe, but so far, the vast majority of human interference has caused more harm than good.
If you have anything showing a smallpox outbreak anywhere on the planet, please show us. Otherwise you are simply "if-ing" and "maybe-ing" your way through this discussion. And that is pointless to any serious discussion.
The point, to me, that is being covered up by the climate debate is that all this man made pollution is killing people, causing a respiratory problem of epidemic proportions and who knows what other health issues that are costing industry in lost time and the health system billions. Arguing about whether or not climate change is affected by human activity is a smoke screen to cover up the real and immediate problems posed by industrial and domestic waste. Islands of garbage in our oceans are poisoning sea life and we are ingesting it. Millions of tons of crap in our air are choking all living things. Raising temperatures are cause more frequent and more deadly storms. But that is OK with some because it is inconsequenial to being able to be a mindless consumer of useless sh!t: bigger cars and trucks, bigger TV and a ton of electronic crap, bigger houses with bigger heating bills and more dams, nuke plants and coal fired, puke breathing plants, Oh yes, and that environmental wonder of wonders, the tar sands and fracking that allows natural gas to come out of your phucking water tap. But as long as some can afford to buy one more piece of garbage, everything is just honky dory. What a bunch of brain dead sheeple. Capitalism, Yay, yay, yay!
Two pages full and the deniers continue to ignore that even the oil sands industry would support a carbon tax to maintain their stewardship.