McSpunckle wrote:dubkitty wrote:why doesn't anyone mock all the non-religious apocalypse-mongers? what happened to the millions of people who were going to be homeless, and the islands that were going to disappear, because the earth was warming? that's what "respected scientists" said five years ago. after they'd said in previous decades that we were entering a new ice age, that we would run out of oil by 1985, that we'd run out of food by 1980, etc. seems to me that scientific apocalypse-mongering has a similar 100% FAIL rate to religious apocalypse-mongering.
Nobody really says Global Warming is going to kill everyone... more that it'll destroy ecosystems, coastal communities (especially the ones made of ice), and polar bears whilst resulting in a much more active atmosphere causing storms to gradually become more severe.
And all of that shit is actually happening.
this.
It isn't too hard to see the phenomenon either, not this near the North Pole. As always, the researchers don't agree completely with the measuring results of the tests, but hey - THAT's what makes science.
Discussion and testing of ideas, not revelations. Revelations may have subjective value to individuals but they hardly stand as an example for scientific reasoning.
One part of the researchers note that in every-so-and-so years we're likely to meet the marginal limiting values of weather extremes, so the Green house effect
may not be the reason for witnessed hard winters and dry summers, though it IS possible. Another part of researchers say it is and that's a fact. And even if it wasn't, it might be a smart thing to be better safe than sorry. Then comes the trouble with telling this to people.
Spreading environmental doesn't seem to be any easier on the large scale than rooting any other idea that might dictate some major change in how we think and how we act, on the level of the whole society. THAT takes time. For example: Western Civilization didn't give up slavery over night when somebody said it's just morally wrong (not that we've given up with slave labor up to date but that's a different discussion) AND in future machines could do that labor better. Now the idea is pretty well rooted and we're often even concerned about the original of the cheap products and the possibility of slave labor in the production (but, like said, that's another discussion).
And when environmental consciousness has had the foothold enough, it doesn't translate on itself from the words into action. Not an easy thing to do either, since it calls for cutting down and regulating some things we've got used to in the West. We are asked to recycle, to consume less, to use sparingly, to share, and to repair instead of just buying a new one... and we'd like to see people in the Developing countries start first
cutting down the polluting that results from getting SOME hold of the benefits of societal welfare. For example: when we're asked not to use cars for one person transportation at all the public rages about how
they should start in the Africa and in the China, their cars polute much more!.
Does that answer or suggest towards the answer to the few unanswered questions above? Good!
perhaps a mod should split this whole environmental issues discussion as a thread of its own ,eh?
