Lophophaps wrote:The science is unproven to many...
Lophophaps wrote:The science is unproven to many, but risking this is not to my liking. For a very long time my environmental impact has been tiny. This also costs less, always good.
pazzar wrote:Essentially Pascal's wager, and in the case of the environment I am OK with it. The doubter's may ask, what if you're wrong? If we are wrong, then surely we have still done much good. in this case, action is better than inaction.
newhue wrote:Perhaps Australias best scientific show came to an end last night. Seems odd and very sad for a counrty where innervation is very much encouraged. Anthropocene is a science consisting of around 30 not related scientist who are saying humans have now matched the earth on climate change. The power is now in our hands. Might be obviouse to some, but the science is need to prove it. Mother nature has proven it can throw us around like match sticks when it come to it. And it may have taken God 40 days to flood the place where nature can so in hours. But us humans now have the command, and choice. Will you stop consuming? It's hard to get your head around, because every thing we do has an impact, and there are so many of us. I post here because I don't want this, not for me, my children, my fiends, or you. I don't want to become the 6th great extinction on planet earth; and no point being an accomplice to it and trying to hide. It's your choice
Great show, take some time, Catalyst's THE ANTHROPOCENE: A NEW AGE OF HUMANS
Some comments on the winding up of the science show.
maddog wrote:Always a glass half empty at BWA. The western world is responsible in its stewardship, learns from its mistakes, consequently things get better not worse. The third world is a little different, but they will catch up as they get richer. So we are on the right track.
The environmental movement itself however has a number of big problems. One is they have based their movement on sin and redemption, fire and brimstone. Things are always the fault of man, on a tipping point towards calamity, the brink of extinction, etc., etc. This stops them acknowledging (and taking some credit) how things have improved because of good management.
Another is appalling ignorance of the natural sciences possessed by so many within the environmental movement. While science is optional, politicised science is favoured and excited fools humoured, so long as you are on the side of the angels. It is no coincidence that support for the Greens is strongest in urban areas far removed from nature. But as each dramatic prophecy fails to materialise the movement loses credibility and status within the broader community. Of course this provides a helping hand to corporate interests. Is this not happening now?
An example? On CO2 and warming it simply cannot all be bad, as many a discredited climatologist, relying on shaky modelling, has foretold. Carbon itself is essential for life, C3 plants evolved in a CO2 rich environment, we now have not enough for them, causing all but a few (C4) grasses to suffer (an ill-equipped stoma hinders photosynthesis). With more CO2 plant life, and consequently other life, will thrive. Warm temperatures are positively correlated with biodiversity, as with rainfall, so Canada should benefit as Australia will. The world will not end as the planet warms, there will be plenty to eat, but we should all fear the cold.
We have a tendency to exaggerate the importance of our species. Termites have a greater influence on Gaia, so perhaps we should name the epoch after them.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest