On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 05:28:45 -0500, Prometheus
wrote:

In article ,
says...
As far as the view that "this small planet" is desperately impacted by
the actions of those within it; this seems to be hubris of a high order.
Can one mess up one's local environment? Absolutely, 19'th century London
is a prime example of that, as are some of our own industrial cities at the
beginning of the industrial revolution. Can we "destroy the planet"? That
is highly debateable; consider the amount of energy and pollution that just
*one* volcanic explosion can produce compared to the output of an
industrialized nation.

Ah, a Rush Limbagh fan.

More a Steve Malloy fan www.junkscience.com

Can we destroy the planet? Probably not- but
I've no doubt that we can make it a rather unpleasant place to live.
I used to buy the line about global warming being junk science, but
it's a little late in the game to keep pretending it isn't there- go
watch the weather channel for a bit- the climate has changed quite a
bit already.

Steve Malloy presents some pretty objective evidence that while global
climate change may be occurring (as it always has, the global climate has
never been in steady state); it is highly questionable that the change is
due to human causes.

There are very few places on the Earth that aren't
directly altered by human beings, and while one person using an
aerosol can isn't going to a darn thing to the ecology, 6 billion of
us doing it sure can.


Evidence that if enough people say the same thing often enough and loud
enough, people will buy into it, even if the evidence is shaky at best.

The global warming hysteria is a prime example. The idea that by
measuring tree ring size, one can determine the average temperature of an
area to within tenths of a degree is ludicrous, yet this is one of the bits
of evidence being used to show how average temperature is increasing
compared to several centuries in the past.

While we may not destroy the planet, or render it absolutely sterile,
it's certainly possible that we can make it a worse place to live.
That's reason enough to think about using resources sensibly. It may
not take that much dramatic change on the part of every person to make
a huge difference to the whole. We're still going to need oil, we're
still going to have to cut down trees- it's not like we should all go
back to living in caves and riding on horseback or any of that
nonsense, but there is certainly room for admitting that something is
happening and working towards a reasonable solution.

I don't disagree with taking care of things, particularly if for no other
reason than to keep our local environment pleasant. However, the strident
extreme is what is being heard, and often acted upon -- that side will
settle for nothing less than an absolute halt to future development and
desires reversal of a significant portion of our current way of life (for
everybody but themselves of course -- the "enlightened ones" must maintain
their standard of living to assure that the rest of us peons are behaving
appropriately).




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+