Man-made Global Warming...

[vajramukti]

Typically a peripheral issue for me because I have not heard any compelling proof that it is real. In the 70s, pollution was heading us towards another ice age, and now, we are cooking ourselves for the same reason. And geology shows us that the earth has been both much hotter and much colder than this at times.

I would like to see us get away from oil and onto renewable clean energy because I think it is better for our own physical health, and I feel that plundering the earth's resources is more destructive from the sense that this is the only place in the universe that can sustain life as we know it, and each time an ecosystem is altered or destroyed, there is a tear in the fabric of that life.

Global warming to me, is cyclical, and due to things way beyond what we control. So this struck me as interesting...

Glaciers in Alaska have shown positive growth for the first time in a while. And, it showed up first in Prince William Sound, the sight of the Exxon Valdez crash and the worst man-made eco-disaster of all time. All the science isn't yet in, and I am sure it will change, as it always does, but is it not ironic that Global Cooling appears to be beginning in the place that "we" destroyed?

Talk about an Inconvenient Truth!

But seriously, is global warming (man-made) a sham? Or were they right in the 70s...pollution is causing an ice-age? Or is it just that we can't affect the climate?

And speaking of shams...why do we pay for shampoo when real poo is free?

[Frater G]

Oct 18, 2008 23:01:43 GMT -5 vajramukti said:

Typically a peripheral issue for me because I have not heard any compelling proof that it is real. In the 70s, pollution was heading us towards another ice age, and now, we are cooking ourselves for the same reason. And geology shows us that the earth has been both much hotter and much colder than this at times.

I would like to see us get away from oil and onto renewable clean energy because I think it is better for our own physical health, and I feel that plundering the earth's resources is more destructive from the sense that this is the only place in the universe that can sustain life as we know it, and each time an ecosystem is altered or destroyed, there is a tear in the fabric of that life.

Global warming to me, is cyclical, and due to things way beyond what we control. So this struck me as interesting...

Glaciers in Alaska have shown positive growth for the first time in a while. And, it showed up first in Prince William Sound, the sight of the Exxon Valdez crash and the worst man-made eco-disaster of all time. All the science isn't yet in, and I am sure it will change, as it always does, but is it not ironic that Global Cooling appears to be beginning in the place that "we" destroyed?

Talk about an Inconvenient Truth!

But seriously, is global warming (man-made) a sham? Or were they right in the 70s...pollution is causing an ice-age? Or is it just that we can't affect the climate?

And speaking of shams...why do we pay for shampoo when real poo is free?

I hear what you're saying. Global warming and cooling has been and is a cyclical pattern event that has been scientifically documented. Nevertheless the quest for lowering fluorocarbons is necessary. Why help something that may have disastrous repercussions? All life on Earth was extinguished three times by a global event....that's an inconvenient reality. The global warming issue is full of political agendas. One being the corporate stifling of perceived competition. Small companies have a tough time growing with all the costs of increased environmental regulations. The very companies that were hit the hardest moved abroad and at the same time they fund through donations the very same agencies that came after them. The fact that they accept the money is also revealing. There are many frivolous and intrusive issues on the table as well like cow flatulence and carbon signature profiling.

[vajramukti]

I hear what you're saying. Global warming and cooling has been and is a cyclical pattern event that has been scientifically documented. Nevertheless the quest for lowering fluorocarbons is necessary. Why help something that may have disastrous repercussions? All life on Earth was extinguished three times by a global event....that's an inconvenient reality. The global warming issue is full of political agendas. One being the corporate stifling of perceived competition. Small companies have a tough time growing with all the costs of increased environmental regulations. The very companies that were hit the hardest moved abroad and at the same time they fund through donations the very same agencies that came after them. The fact that they accept the money is also revealing. There are many frivolous and intrusive issues on the table as well like cow flatulence and carbon signature profiling.

Agreed. Personally, I think we should be good stewards of our environment because it is the right thing to do. I am not sure why everything has to get so political. Well, actually, I am sure, but tired of it.