I grew up in a very large city, in fact, the largest city in the United States. One side effect of this lifestyle was and still is pollution. I grew up looking down the avenue on hot sweltering summer days seeing nothing but black clouds hovering over the streets. It was not my ideology that was imagining this, it was real. Scienctists knew back then that pollution was harmful to all living creatures.
All through the years, it just amazed me how so many people have actually argued about human contribution to global warming. And what is even more astounding, is that there are actually people still who think that this latest global warming trend has nothing to do with human activities.
The U.S. Government has resisted for many years acknowledging what many other countries have already discovered years ago, that human pollution into the environment is contributing to the latest warming trend. So my concern is why our government is taking so long to face up to an extremely critical issue? An issue that goes far beyond corporate profit. After all, if we are all dead because our environment can't substain life anymore, what use is money.
Do we need any proof from "experts" to tell us that what we are doing to our environment is very harmful, not to the Earth, but to us! The Earth will survive. Its not the planet that is on its way out, it is us.
Another question, why is it that the some of the same people who argue against human contribution to global warming see those that are not in denial of global warming as "tree-hugging" hippies, or liberals? What does ideology have to do with this issue?
I believe it is time we all stop being in denial and start helping "our" situation. Is it not instinctual for all, or most, species, to want to survive, not only for the individual, but to continue the species? And wouldn't it be considered suicide or murder if we go against that natural instinct?
If anyone wants to check out an interesting website about the climate change and how we can start making a difference, then go to http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
>An issue that goes far beyond corporate profit. After all, if we are all dead because our enviroment can't substain life anymore, what use is money.
At our current rate of pollution, life can be sustained for atleast 50 more years as said by my science professor. These people are middle-aged. Therefore, they can spend their riches long before that deadline is met. The problem is that after they do this then the next generation is left with the burden of fixing it. Thankfully, the baby boom generation is on its way out and whatever this next generation is called is coming in to reign. It will be upon them to carry through with a solution for this problem.
i just had to laugh at "Thankfully, the baby boom generation is on its way out..." Geez, Grandma and Grandpa didn't hug you enough.
On a more related note. While I do agree that human industry and transportation have had a significant impact upon the climate and the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, I do not believe that all the problem rests on us. Throughout the history of the earth, the climate goes through regular cycles of high temperature and low temperature, high CO2 concentration and low CO2 concentration. We happen to be at the end of a high temperature cycle which compounded with the last 100 years of industry and automobiles makes the average global temp considerably higher.
I just think that Earth's natural temperature cycle should be addressed when discussing global warming as opposed to using corporate and government greed as the scapegoat for all the world's problems.
>At our current rate of pollution, life can be sustained for atleast 50 more years as said by my science professor.
It can actually be sustained for much, much longer than that. I think maybe what your professor was saying is that there won't be any significant impact on life for 50 years, not that if nothing changes we'll all be dead in 50 years.
>I do not believe that all the problem rests on us.
This is a straw man. As far as I can tell, no credible source has ever said "all" of the problem is human-caused.
>the climate goes through regular cycles of high temperature and low temperature
This is certainly true, but we are actually supposed to be in a cooling trend right now. That's why in the 1970s most climatologists were suggesting we were moving toward a new ice age. Global warming has not only reversed that natural cooling trend, it has pushed us in the other direction faster than any previous trend we have on record.
>I just think that Earth's natural temperature cycle should be addressed when discussing global warming as
Scientists have already acknowledged this. There isn't really a need to point it out in every conversation, particularly when there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, do something about the human-caused elements, which is why we focus on those.
>opposed to using corporate and government greed as the scapegoat for all the world's problems.
Slippery slope. How do you get from "humans have cause part of global warming" to "greed is the scapegoat for all the world's problems." You can't logically make that jump. Again, no credible person has claimed that greed is the cause of "all" the world's problems.
Geez. Bash Kyler and all his Logical Fallacies day...
Guess I'm getting weak. I'm usually pretty good about watching those.
Don't worry, it isn't just you, and it isn't really bashing, just explaining the logical fallacies. Look around at other posts and you'll see I go after anyone who uses a logical fallacy (as long as I spot it). That's part of the point of the blog -- to help people learn to better construct their arguments.
Post a Comment