Earth's Fever

[Timo]

Here's an idea I had:

Okay, so everybody knows Global Warming is a problem, and most are concerned, but few really try to change anything. I do my best, but I could do more.
Everyone also knows that when you get sick you get a fever. Fevers are caused by your body to try and help you get rid of the virus or bacteria infecting you.

Here's the idea:

We, collectively as humans, are trashing the Earth, but nobody's really going to stop. What if the Earth (I'm not trying to say the earth is alive) is getting a fever like we do in an attempt to stop us? What if we aren't just causing Global Warming, but are the cause of it?
It's an out there idea, (and if anybody else had it first, I don't know) and most people won't see this, or if they do, they won't change, but if I can get just a few people to read this and try to help, then I'll feel great about taking the time to post this.

[the maple epee]

A very interesting idea. It seems to relate somewhat to the Gaia hypothesis.
I would not write it off immediatly, although I am wholely convinced that our actions, as humans, are causing it.

[Lucifer]

Well, I'm not in a hurry to concede that our actions are the sole cause and that without external factors it would still be happening, since recent finds on Mars happen to include the temperature rising there as well...

But that's not the real issue anyway, whether or not we're causing it is irrelevant, except insofar as people want to believe the changes can be reversed. What's most important is how we adapt to the situation, and that's largely independent of the cause.

[theLuz]

I know you're not very old (from other posts) and you can't remember certain things that are happening in this country. This country is substantially better in terms of pollution (air and water) than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Don't believe the Main Stream media when they try to scare you.

I've traveled in China and other third world countries and they have enoumous problems that can also be solved by used the technology that has been developed here by very smart people.

We're going to have temperature cycles and we should all do what we can to minimize our impact, but don't think we can really change the earths natural cycles. One volcano has more impact on earth than all of mankind.

Relax and fence.

[parrythis]

The very spot that I am currently sitting and typing this post used to be covered with glaciers. Yes, the earth is (re)warming, but it has been doing so for far, far, far longer than mankind has been able to make any significnant contribution to the effort. Anyone that thinks that we are the sole or even primary cause of global warming needs to set their ego aside and step back and view the facts from the perspective of a few 100 millennia.

The planet changes. It has been doing so for millions of years. It is supremely egotistical of mankind to expect it to stop doing so just for them.

That being said, we ARE raping the planet in other ways - depleting it's natural resources, polluting its waters. We need to stop and consider the legacy we are leaving for our future generations.

[Lucifer]

There are a number of problems with the global warming debate on its own.

* It's politically convenient for several factions that are growing in power to say it's our fault and the faction in power is irresponsibly ignoring it.
* The "scientific consensus" that it is our fault is starting to look a lot like the scientific consensus that Galileo went up against.
* The base argument makes sense, that if we pump out carbon that's been locked in the earth's crust for a couple of billion years we'll wind up with a Venerian atmosphere, which would destroy us no matter how you slice it. And to question this effect credibly you need serious credentials. The crux of the issue is the rate at which we're pumping out this carbon, which screams calculus. In fact, I've been into vector calculus the last couple of semesters and I still don't have enough math to come even close to trying to model this argument, and there are very big brains working on it, but see my point about scientific consensus.

What I personally want to pull from it is the idea that yes, humans can wreck their environment and make it unlivable, and that yes, humans need to be more responsible in how they use the planet's resources, and that yes, as long as we have all our eggs in one basket (this planet) we are vulnerable to mass extinction events which are known to have occurred several times in the planet's history, and finally that yes, we still need to adapt to a world whose only rule is change. Everything else is a distraction.

[Slim]

Here's an idea I had:

Okay, so everybody knows Global Warming is a problem, and most are concerned, but few really try to change anything. I do my best, but I could do more.
Everyone also knows that when you get sick you get a fever. Fevers are caused by your body to try and help you get rid of the virus or bacteria infecting you.

Here's the idea:

We, collectively as humans, are trashing the Earth, but nobody's really going to stop. What if the Earth (I'm not trying to say the earth is alive) is getting a fever like we do in an attempt to stop us? What if we aren't just causing Global Warming, but are the cause of it?
It's an out there idea, (and if anybody else had it first, I don't know) and most people won't see this, or if they do, they won't change, but if I can get just a few people to read this and try to help, then I'll feel great about taking the time to post this.

First off, Al Gore, who coined the scare phrase "The planet has a fever" is neither a doctor nor a scientist. In fact, a lot of scientists are trying to distance themselves from Gore's scare rhetoric. Gore is a politician who is using the global warming issue for his political gain.

Second...the earth is indeed living. It's constantly changing. Millions of species have come and gone prior to the existance of our species, and the cycle will continue once we're gone too. To think we have the power to hold back and alter the long term forces of nature is, as someone pointed out, extremely egotistical.

If we all went back to living like cave men, would that save us from ourselves? Nope. At best, it would simply prolong the inevitable.

(My apoligies to any cave men reading this. I know you guys have been taking a bad rap lately).

[parrythis]

If we all went back to living like cave men, would that save us from ourselves? Nope. At best, it would simply prolong the inevitable.

(My apoligies to any cave men reading this. I know you guys have been taking a bad rap lately).

Now you've done it! They are going to be sending you nasty text messages and blogging about your insensitivity like crazy!

[bousquet]

>>What if the Earth (I'm not trying to say the earth is alive) is getting a fever like we do in an attempt to stop us? What if we aren't just causing Global Warming, but are the cause of it?<<

Hahahahahahahahhahahahah - taking a breath - hahahahahahahahahahh. That's too much.

Those interested in global warming - check out what the Sun is doing and has been doing for the past 40 years. The Solar Constant is not a constant. The Sun has been in a period of greater solar activity with higher maximas and the solar cycle has been getting shorter. The shorter the solar cylcle, the warmer the earth's temperture. The correlation between solar cycle length and the rising earth's temperature is much closer then the correlation between CO2 levels and the earth's temperature. (Check for yourself. The info is out there.)

Good news is on the horrizon. NASA and others who study the Sun and predict solar activity, say the next two solar cylces (they last anywhere from 9-13 years) will have fewer Sun spots and will have longer solar cycles. Meaning: earth temperatures should decrease. If by 2025, when the solar activity should be less, the earth's temperature is still rising, then we may have cause for concern.

The earth is not the warmest it's ever been. It was warmer 800 years ago when the Vikings were farming Greenland.

Environmentalists don't have a very good track record when it comes to making predictions. Just 30 years ago they were predicting another ice age.

When Al Gore and all the celebrities running around wanting us to change our lifestyle actually get around to changing their lifestyle, then maybe I'll start to get worried. When Al Gore drives around in a small Honda and owns only one house, a 2,000 sq ft house heated by geothermal or solar, then maybe I'll give him some credibility. 'Til then, he and his ilk are just phoney, baloney attention seekers.

[felicote]

There are a number of problems with the global warming debate on its own.

* It's politically convenient for several factions that are growing in power to say it's our fault and the faction in power is irresponsibly ignoring it.
* The "scientific consensus" that it is our fault is starting to look a lot like the scientific consensus that Galileo went up against.
* The base argument makes sense, that if we pump out carbon that's been locked in the earth's crust for a couple of billion years we'll wind up with a Venerian atmosphere, which would destroy us no matter how you slice it. And to question this effect credibly you need serious credentials. The crux of the issue is the rate at which we're pumping out this carbon, which screams calculus. In fact, I've been into vector calculus the last couple of semesters and I still don't have enough math to come even close to trying to model this argument, and there are very big brains working on it, but see my point about scientific consensus.

What I personally want to pull from it is the idea that yes, humans can wreck their environment and make it unlivable, and that yes, humans need to be more responsible in how they use the planet's resources, and that yes, as long as we have all our eggs in one basket (this planet) we are vulnerable to mass extinction events which are known to have occurred several times in the planet's history, and finally that yes, we still need to adapt to a world whose only rule is change. Everything else is a distraction.

I dont think your "scientific consensus" point is valid. At least not with Galileo as an example. The entity that Galileo was going against was the Catholic church, not a scientific community. Bohr and quantum mechanics would be a better example.

[Lucifer]

Heh, ok, I don't know about the Bohr thing, I'll wikipedia it up later. (here's hoping this is the first time wikipedia has been used as a verb)

You got the point, obviously, but for anybody who didn't, the point is that this scientific consensus is starting to look a lot more like conviction based on faith, which is not what science is all about. We've got some nutjobs calling for anybody who questions global warming to be stripped of all scientific credentials they may have. (I still think the situation parallels Galileo's, but you're right about who his enemy was compared to who the enemy is for anybody who *gasp* tries to apply the scientific method to global warming)