Food for Thought.... 🤔

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
74,636
297
83
Vernon, B.C.
I guess you have an exact idea on how much a contribution it makes? Everything I have seen is all just theories and conjecture and of course "climate religion". Just because the CBC says it's so doesn't mean it is.
Sorry, I don't have any hard and fast answers to that. I don't think there is any doubt that mankind is responsible for some of the damage, like erosion and pollution but whether it's 10% or 90% I really can't tell. There could be factors that most of us haven't even thought of. And then there's a question of which are temporary and which are permanent.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
45,037
414
83
Washington DC
You're right, I should have said they are CONTRIBUTING toward killing the earth or at the very least crippling it.
Don't get in an uproar, JLM. I understand what you're saying. And of course it's perfectly true and even, dare I say it?. . . conservative.

Since the dawn of time, we've changed the way we do things as circumstances dictate. Hunting not good? We trap more, fish more, Organize bigger parties to hunt bigger critters. River shift course or spring run dry? We move to be closer to water. Soil play out and harvests get bad? We plant different fields. Over time we learn some. We rotate crops, come up with techniques like fertilizing. Need ways to get bigger loads from point A to point B faster? We develop steam engines and IC engines to replace the oxcarts and windjammers. When one technology quits working, or the materials get scarce, or we need more power, we improve techniques and develop new techniques.

And there are always people whose sense of self is so weak that they are emotionally invested in keeping everything exactly the way it was when they were young adults. The ones who say "We've always done it this way" as if that's some kind of universal declaration of goodness.

They're idiots.

What exactly we should do to satisfy our energy needs is open to debate. As time marches on, different sources will become cheaper, easier to use, and have fewer downsides. But the problems won't be solved by people who pick one or two sources and make a religion out of 'em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLM

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
32,689
1,020
113
Vancouver Island
It's pretty hard to ignore the ice melt in Greenland and the Antarctic. Whether this is a long term or short term process I have no idea.
Every now and then vegetation is found under this glacier melt, indicating that either it was bare ground at some time in the past or they had superior snow removal equipment 50000 years ago than we have now.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
74,636
297
83
Vernon, B.C.
Yep, it's survived far worse than anything that's happening right now. Read up on the great Permian extinction event, for instance, something like 90% of species snuffed it in that one. The Earth will be fine. We may not be.
One important change to note...................there's a lot more people on the planet now! :)
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,989
990
113
Olympus Mons
It's pretty hard to ignore the ice melt in Greenland and the Antarctic. Whether this is a long term or short term process I have no idea.
Why is hard to ignore the melt in Greenland? That ice sheet wasn't even there 1000 years ago and humans did just fine and dandy. As for the Antarctic, do we know that the ice extent was 1000 years ago? And let's also look at the Arctic. The base measurement for the sea ice extent is based on 1979 satellite imagery. This is important because 1979 was an anomaly. That year the Arctic sea ice extent was the highest it had been in over 50 years. That means that the doom and gloom about the Arctic sea ice is based entirely on a single anomalous year.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
96,264
2,203
113
Moccasin Flats
Why is hard to ignore the melt in Greenland? That ice sheet wasn't even there 1000 years ago and humans did just fine and dandy. As for the Antarctic, do we know that the ice extent was 1000 years ago? And let's also look at the Arctic. The base measurement for the sea ice extent is based on 1979 satellite imagery. This is important because 1979 was an anomaly. That year the Arctic sea ice extent was the highest it had been in over 50 years. That means that the doom and gloom about the Arctic sea ice is based entirely on a single anomalous year.
The majority of ice that everyone is so nostalgic about losing never existed 500 years ago.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
7,989
990
113
Olympus Mons
Don't get in an uproar, JLM. I understand what you're saying. And of course it's perfectly true and even, dare I say it?. . . conservative.

Since the dawn of time, we've changed the way we do things as circumstances dictate. Hunting not good? We trap more, fish more, Organize bigger parties to hunt bigger critters. River shift course or spring run dry? We move to be closer to water. Soil play out and harvests get bad? We plant different fields. Over time we learn some. We rotate crops, come up with techniques like fertilizing. Need ways to get bigger loads from point A to point B faster? We develop steam engines and IC engines to replace the oxcarts and windjammers. When one technology quits working, or the materials get scarce, or we need more power, we improve techniques and develop new techniques.

And there are always people whose sense of self is so weak that they are emotionally invested in keeping everything exactly the way it was when they were young adults. The ones who say "We've always done it this way" as if that's some kind of universal declaration of goodness.

They're idiots.

What exactly we should do to satisfy our energy needs is open to debate. As time marches on, different sources will become cheaper, easier to use, and have fewer downsides. But the problems won't be solved by people who pick one or two sources and make a religion out of 'em.
Interestingly enough, periods of climate instability are what also helped human evolution along. Every leap forward in the evolution of the human species was preceded by dramatic shifts in climate.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
12,769
344
83
Toronto, ON
Every now and then vegetation is found under this glacier melt, indicating that either it was bare ground at some time in the past or they had superior snow removal equipment 50000 years ago than we have now.
Things weren't always where they always were. Antarctica used to be a tropical paradise. Only the penguins adapted to its new position. One would assume that would mean its current position is also not permanent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petros