Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Fundamental flaws in the analysis of global warming model?

eple · 10-29-2003, 03:30 PM

Peryn: you must understand that the impact on human emissoins are only relevant in a realtively short period of time. We are talking a few hundred years more or less. The normal shifts of temperature are happening all the time, what scientists are arguing are numbers that show that we are straying from the normal pre-ice age heating. Volcanoes, underwater earthquakes, meteors and thousands of other factors pose a much bigger threat to the enviroment in the long run, but when we remember that 90% of human scientific progression have occured the last 60 years, those few hundred years of supposed climate change might be quite important. As an enviromentalist, I do not believe that we can do any real damage to the planet, all life on the planet have been nearly wiped out approximately (could someone teach me how to spell that? Too tired to look it up) 5 times, the human race can't do any real damage in the long run.

Enviromentalism is about preserving the earth for the coming generatinos a few hundred years forward, not about saving the planet or nature or anything like that. We are far too insignificant to be worried about the world, we are worrying about coming generations. Is that really so bad?

There are way too many myths and way too much aggression in the enviromental debate, and I realize that most people have a quite bad and flawed impression of enviromentalism and enviromental issues as such.

Did you for example know that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and that the internationsal community through progress and treaties have solved the problem with ozone holes? Within 20 years, the ozone layer will be repaired. The problem was solved thorugh research and reaction, and we now have ozone-friendly gasees in most of the formerly dangerous products.

You now know what I stand for, and you should know that this is what the UN are talking about as well. I do not believe that advocating a sensible "rather safe than sorry" policy on enviromental issues is very radical, it is a reasonable approatch to a problem.

10-29-2003, 03:30 PM	#9 (permalink)
eple Banned Location: norway	Peryn: you must understand that the impact on human emissoins are only relevant in a realtively short period of time. We are talking a few hundred years more or less. The normal shifts of temperature are happening all the time, what scientists are arguing are numbers that show that we are straying from the normal pre-ice age heating. Volcanoes, underwater earthquakes, meteors and thousands of other factors pose a much bigger threat to the enviroment in the long run, but when we remember that 90% of human scientific progression have occured the last 60 years, those few hundred years of supposed climate change might be quite important. As an enviromentalist, I do not believe that we can do any real damage to the planet, all life on the planet have been nearly wiped out approximately (could someone teach me how to spell that? Too tired to look it up) 5 times, the human race can't do any real damage in the long run. Enviromentalism is about preserving the earth for the coming generatinos a few hundred years forward, not about saving the planet or nature or anything like that. We are far too insignificant to be worried about the world, we are worrying about coming generations. Is that really so bad? There are way too many myths and way too much aggression in the enviromental debate, and I realize that most people have a quite bad and flawed impression of enviromentalism and enviromental issues as such. Did you for example know that the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and that the internationsal community through progress and treaties have solved the problem with ozone holes? Within 20 years, the ozone layer will be repaired. The problem was solved thorugh research and reaction, and we now have ozone-friendly gasees in most of the formerly dangerous products. You now know what I stand for, and you should know that this is what the UN are talking about as well. I do not believe that advocating a sensible "rather safe than sorry" policy on enviromental issues is very radical, it is a reasonable approatch to a problem. Last edited by eple; 10-29-2003 at 03:33 PM..