Best
450 Comments
Post
  • #1
    !
    What would you have us do? Give dictatorial powers to the UN? That's really the only way to try to control the climate of the entire planet. Obama can't do it because he's only president of one country, and whatever body undertakes such a feat will have to be dictatorial - the democratic process will allow (as it currently does) for big business to buy the politicians and laws they want, for "deniers" to sway outcomes, and for the electorate at large to be distracted by other issues closer to home, and that will undermine the goal of total planetary ecological control. Is a one-world tyranny what you really want? Would it be worth it? I say no. As I've said before, I'd rather die free on a warm globe than live in chains on a cold one.
  • #35
    !
    "What would you have us do? Give dictatorial powers to the UN?"

    No, educate yourself and do what you need to do because it's the strategy that benefit us the most.

    You might read up on past civilizations that withered because they depleted their resources.
  • #43
    !
    @Cincinnatus "No, educate yourself and do what you need to do"

    That is a very sensible answer, and indeed, I do much to reduce my impact on the environment. I recycle everything I can, I drive a very fuel efficient car, I live close to work to minimize my commute, I air condition my apartment only slightly in the summer and heat it just enough to keep pipes from freezing in the winter, and I even share toilet flushes with other members of my family. But will all those who are in a panicked frenzy over the environment agree with you that this is the best approach? After all, my father-in-law recycles nothing and drives a big truck--your approach would permit him to continue to do so. I suspect, however, that the panic-stricken would prefer to force him to recycle and, indeed, to force the entire world to adopt whatever policies they see as most beneficial to preservation of the environment--and that mentality will ultimately result in a single body having dictatorial control over the entire planet.
  • #49
    !
    If you think the UN can accomplish anything I think you are wrong. It is a third-world dominated corrupt organization which the US should withdraw from and quit funding.
  • R Load more replies

  • #17
    !
    The extinction rate is some 100 times the normal background rate by most estimates. The fragmentation of ecosystems by human development isolates species and limits their mobility in times of change. Tropical deforestation destroys entire ecosystems where untold numbers of species are lost forever. Rising ocean acidity is reducing the ability of species to grow and maintain shells. Corral reefs are bleaching due to pollution and rising sea water temperatures. Coastal waters in large areas are suffering from anoxia induced dead zones, the result of human pollution.

    Poaching, overfishing, habitat destruction and toxic pollution are taking a huge toll. In addition, climate change further stresses ecosystems forcing dependent species to relocate faster than they are capable of. Rapid climate change (on geologic time scales) has always been disruptive to living things, but this time life faces human caused impediments which are attaching it from many angles at once. The long term outlook is not a rosy one.
  • #45
    !
    @jerbear Wow! Make accusations much? A quick web search reveals that not one of those sentences matches anything else, word-for-word, on the WWW. So, maybe you'd like to clarify why you're accusing Russell797 of plagiarism.
  • R Load more replies

  • #9
    !
    ""Climate disruption" and habitat loss are causing a sixth great mass extinction"

    One would think the title would be "humans are causing the sixth great mass extinction" but this probably wouldn't generate as much strife concerning global warming/cooling/climate change.
  • #233
    !
    Yep. I'm also pretty sure that the decimation of Tigers in the wild (as pictured above accompanying the article) has nothing at all to do alleged "climate disruption" and more to do with rampant poaching. Why aren't liberal tree huggers like Mary Noble all over THIS issue instead of just pushing their phony "global warming" agenda?
  • #245
    !
    @Father-of-LIES Because, hey why isten to scientists about the climate of the only planet we are aware of that can sustain us.
  • #321
    !
    Anouther view--

    Man cannot change the climate or weather. If weather becomes hostile to man, consider God's intervention -- It's not the first time!

    "Solomon said,“One generation passes away, and another generation comes; but the earth abides forever”(Eccl. 1:4). He then notes the rising and setting of the sun, the circuit of the wind, and the water cycle (Eccl. 1:5-7). His point is that men do not change the way the world works; man’s presence on the earth is not a disruption to the earth.

    God made earth for man (Gen. 1:1-31). Initially, He made it to support two people, Adam and Eve. However, He was not ignorant that 6,000 years later 6 billion people would inhabit the planet. If He was, He is not God.

    When God finished the creation on day six, mankind had everything needed for its sustenance for all time. Nothing more has been or needs to be created. The resources given by God at the beginning are enough to sustain us until Christ returns, even if that is another 6,000 years and 50 billion people. Hence, our existence and use of the resources on earth will not change our globe appreciably.

    When Noah left the ark, the Lord said,“While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, and day and night shall not cease”(Gen. 8:22). Unless you are willing to deny God’s explicit word, you must accept that mankind, no matter what it does, is not going to cause GW/CC. It is not possible." <quoted in part from the following URL>

    http://www.implantedword.com/global-warming-a...
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    I'll give this credit for being partially correct. Habitat loss is a huge concern.

    With our population so high why do we allow uncontrolled access to our country? The world's population is exploding and this should be addressed.
  • #38
    !
    "The world's population is exploding and this should be addressed."

    It should be, but realistically, we both know it won't.

    The best we can do is try and preserve as much as we can for as long as we can until populations stabilize or begin to drop.

    The hitch is that it will take several generations.
  • #239
    !
    @mebisconer

    No, world population will grow for a few more decades, and then either stabilize or slowly begin to drop.

    Probably.

    The deciding factor will be education/standard of living.

    Poor subsistence farmers with no supportive institutions need large families.
  • R Load more replies

  • #10
    !
    Overpopulation of humans is the biggest problem. The world's population is growing and there is only so much land and resources to be had before we encroach on other species habitats and drive them to extinction. Our unfettered use of fossil fuel energy is killing us by causing climate change, and loss of habitats for plants and animals. Everything in nature is connected and we are on the verge of causing our own extinction. I don't know if this is all too late to reverse but we should at least do what we can to try and the first thing we need to do is get the world's population under control by working with other countries to first realize we need to do this and then implement a plan to do it. The easiest way would be to just stop reproducing so much. We would need to make a 1-2 child policy, make contraception available to everyone, make free sterilization available to anyone who chose it. These things would help us reduce our population to a more stable one but we would also need to get off the fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy.
  • #40
    !
    It is a truly terrifying world of which you dream. Who will wield such totalitarian powers over the entire planet? Would you have it be a totalitarian democracy, in which Islamic extremists have a vote over what civil liberties you may and may not exercise? Or would you prefer a monarchy, where at least Christians wouldn't be able to ban your gay marriage, but there exists a potential for one bad and selfish heir to ruin everything? Would you want to limit the types of people who can vote in order to protect your freedom? Who would you disenfranchise, in that case, or who would decide who gets disenfranchised? And I say "totalitarian" because what powers would be off the table? If a 1-2 child policy doesn't work, what about a no-children-unless-authorized policy? What about mandatory euthanasia in the name of population control? What about complete abrogation of all property rights to prevent potential environment-damaging misuse of possessions? How will you ensure that such a government never goes too far?
  • #46
    !
    @TheSaltMiner I never said anything about a totalitarian power, I said all countries would have to work together to tackle the problem. Instituting a 1-2 child policy would be a start that would reduce world population especially in countries where 5-8 or more children is the norm. With the incentive of free sterilization many people would choose to have no children and with free access to birth control women could choose if and when they had their 1-2 children. I'm going to get into an abortion debate but we would also need to have free access to abortion for women who chose it. I don't believe we should have mandatory euthanasia but is some people chose it they should have a right to do so. We should also switch to renewable energy and use our resources wisely but we would remain as countries working together for a common goal and not a totalitarian government in any way.
  • R Load more replies

  • #93
    !
    Been happening for more than a few years. Only now catching the attention of the masses. What it will take is international co operation to affect global warming. It has been done on other issues it should be doable on this.
  • #63
    !
    This is not "climate disruption", this is destruction of habitat, over hunting, and the powerful pesticides we use on our food.

    As far as food prices/bees go, the article linked from HuffPost doesn't say the decline has caused an increase in food prices, it said it "Food prices could rise even more unless the mysterious decline in honey bees is solved".

    The current reason for high food prices are fuel costs, droughts for some items, and mostly because 42% of all corn grown now goes to make Ethanol. Which had nearly doubled to price of corn over the last couple years.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/cor...

    Lucky for us this is forecasted to be a bumper year and prices are dropping.
  • #8
    !
    It's time to declare war on Brazil and other countries with rainforests, I guess. However much of an extinction problem there is, it is caused by deforestation, not "climate disruption." What is that, anyhow?
  • #172
    !
    @DarylL yeah, so I figured. Is anthropogenic climate change discredited so soon? It took 20+ years for Global Warming.

    Another liberal term I've yet to see fully defined is "assault weapon"; I bet those are playing a role in mass extinction too.
  • #322
    !
    @Ryuo You don't think man has any impact on climate? Are you being honest with yourselves or did your educators really teach you that? Wow...
  • #325
    !
    @Now_What "You don't think man has any impact on climate?"

    Nice job - you managed to fit a straw man and an ad hominem attack in one short sentence. If you could have fit an appeal to authority in there you'd have had a hat trick. I was referring to the Left's habit of adding new, more or less redundant, terms without defining them properly.
  • R Load more replies

  • #206
    !
    Does it really matter what it's called? Go ahead, pick any name you like, as long as it will enable you to understand the scientific facts on this issue.
  • #59
    !
    @Cincinnatus as far as I'm concerned, man-made climate disruption (is that the official tree hugger name for it now? I can't keep up with the name changes.) is debatable but our over breeding has a huge impact.
  • #203
    !
    @Nemesis3X - whether we call it global warming, climate change, or climate disruption, it has been proven, over and over and over again, to be anthropogenic.
  • R Load more replies

  • #71
    !
    In the midwest the bear, cougars, and foxes have come back in the wild. We are not World ECO Police. The USA is doing their part. The other countries need to control their own back yards.
  • #229
    !
    The problem there is their fences are rotten and falling down so now they are encroaching on our property. I can see it now. World War III started over climate change.
  • #320
    !
    @mebisconer You may say that somewhat in jest, but wars almost always come down to a fight over resources. WWIII will be no different, and that will be exactly what it's over. The question will be whether the US with virtually no help can overcome the global force of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

    If you look at the Gaza conflict, the real back story is not religion, it is a battle for resources.
  • #351
    !
    @Firestorm If you read Robert Gates book Duty the US Military is purchasing for the kind of global force you are talking about. He took exception to that because they were and are still not purchasing for the type of wars that we are in now and leaving our troops to go to combat without adequate equipment. Look how long it took to give our personal Kevlar vests and vehicles that would sustain roadside bombings. Parents and friends were purchasing that kind of gear for the first 3 or 4 years of the "Lightening War" in Iraq. He seems to think those are the only kind of future wars we will be fighting. I am not wise enough to contradict.

    I can also see continents like Africa going the way of nature as far as population goes but China is talking about eliminating the one baby per family and they are along with Russia the worst polluters in the entire world but they have the intellect to defeat a lot of what I mentioned. As long as we have enough money to buy China's goods they won't kill off their favorite customer but in light of recent events in Ukraine we can't depend of any sanity from Russia. North Korea is nothing compared to Russia as about two nukes would eliminate the entire northern Peninsula.
  • #368
    !
    @Firestorm - You're right. "Mad Max"? But that definitely explains why the 'right' has made a run on ammo in the last several years.

    And no we can't overcome it by ourselves. As I said in another post, eventually, the GOP, and the rest of the world will get onboard. By then, it will probably be too late.

    So, maybe Cheney is right. Stop spending on EVERYTHING ELSE, and spend on the military. In the upcoming WWIII, that will be what's important.
    (And here I thought Cheney was crazy, when it turns out he's simply a 'futurist'). Don't fix global warming. Just make sure your military can control what's left.
  • #434
    !
    @eyesonu I just mentioned you on another thread, but your comment probably has more truth than anyone wants to admit. With the rising power of the new Axis power- China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea (and Brazil?) things are going to get very Interesting over the next few decades.
  • R Load more replies

  • #428
    !
    Species appear and disappear with different ages and this is natural not man made by any means. Quit using a panic button on every little change and you will soon get response from in depth research and reasoning, from real people and not graphs, temperature scales and sophisticated equipment.
  • #409
    !
    Balderdash! Science is buying into the climate fraud. The arctic ice increased 29% over last year. The earth has been cooling for seventeen years. Carbon dioxide is not a green house gas. Univ. of E. Anglia's Professor Jones falsified his data. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had to change its temperature records from the computer model's to the actual recorded temperature. The ozone layer is increasing. Game over enviro-dissembling progressives. Your big lie has been exposed.

    IF the data IS valid, they have to find another causal link. Climate change isn't a valid cause, and hasn't been since the last great extinction.
  • #404
    !
    Aww, such a cute little tiger cub pictured for this article. Why didn't they use a picture of the spiders, worms and insects the article mentioned instead?
  • R Load more comments...
Post