 |
 |
| • HOME |
| • About Stockton, CA |
| • History of TWN |
| • kcuhC's Law |
| • kcuhCam: [All] 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| • News & Info |
| • Discussion Forum |
| • Chat Room |
| • TRS-80 Information |
| • Cub Scout Pack 61 |
| • Adventures of Moooonica |
| • The Hague Family |
| • kcuhC's Site of the Weird |
| • Planetvest |
| • IKOP |
| • Hagueletts |
 |
Monday, September 06, 2010 |
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
| Welcome to kcuhC.com | The online home for The Wrong Number BBS | ||||
 |
Environmental Misinformation - 04/21/2005 9:12 PM Let’s talk about the environment, for a moment. Are you concerned about global warming or the ozone layer? How about deforestation or other global scale problems caused by mankind? If so, consider yourself duped. First, recognize that mankind has only had about fifty years of information gathering in the history of the Earth. Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, we have about 50 years of measurements of any level of reliability, and even some of that is questionable. Can you imagine the arrogance of trying to state, as fact, mankind’s influence on the planet Earth with only a .000001% of information collected? Long ago man looked upon the sun and noticed a cycle of 11 years. Further analysis determined that a more subtle cycle of 22 years was apparent. As time goes by, will we discover a larger cycle? The ozone layer thins at the south pole at one time of the year, and increased at another… if you ignorantly looked at a few random points in time, it might appear to be vanishing! Before mankind was around to fight and put out forest fires, they would, on occasion spread from one coast to another! Man, who sometimes starts fires and often cuts down trees, also stops fires that would otherwise periodically create fires of unimaginable size. There are more trees in the US now than there were 70 years ago. Has mankind harmed the environment? Depending on how you define this, yes, it has. New York City’s environment is certainly more polluted thanks to man than it was 300 years ago. Has this changed the climate of the planet? Prove it. With all of NASA’s panicked cries of crisis, along with dozens of other groups, there remains no solid scientific evidence to support the notion that mankind is harming the planet on a global level. NOTHING! The ozone layer, global warming (or cooling) deforestation, etc. have no basis in scientific fact. Is it possible some of these things are happening? Yes. Is it possible that some of these things may have an impact on the planet? Yes. Is there any solid scientific evidence to support the notion that mankind is potentially impacting these events? No. There is none. Yet extremists have convinced the majority of people on the planet that these global problems are real and are caused by mankind. Do these facts mean that mankind should be careless and pollute or otherwise knowingly harm the planet? Obviously not. We need to be environmentally responsible. But let’s balance environmental concerns with science, logic and facts. It is irrational to decimate the economies of countries like the United States without at least a little scientific basis. What’s the difference between real environmental difference, feel-good environmental difference and phony environmental difference? This is complicated. But, let’s pick on California and potentially other states. Buy a new car, and you have to have it smog checked in just two years. But pay an extra fee, and you can go four years. Do those extra dollars cause the car to somehow be more environmentally friendly? No, but it is a little cheaper for the consumer, so what the heck. It is nothing but extortion, but it is cheaper than not paying the extra fee, so people will generally pay it. California forced a new gasoline formulation on its citizens years ago because it was more environmentally friendly. Or was it? It turned out that the more expensive gasoline was 5% less efficient, which mean that 5% more fuel would be burned. It had chemicals in it that were highly susceptible to entering the water supply, which caused other problems. This was a knee-jerk reaction to “save the planet”. Typical; based on emotion rather than scientific fact. When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it released more green-house destructive gasses than the sum of mankind throughout the industrial age…and it didn’t seep slowly into the upper atmosphere where the ozone is, it was shot directly into it! The ozone was more harmed by this one recent small eruption than everything mankind has done since the dawn of time…yet this fact is almost impossible to find! Most people today believe in global warming. In 1970, most believed in global cooling. Both had extremists bemoaning the evils of mankind, but both lack scientific evidence, certainly in regards to mankind’s influence. Let’s assume, for a moment, that we are experiencing global warming. With only .000001% of the environmental history of the world understood, how qualified are we to understand the long-term trends of this planet and mankind’s potential influence upon them? It is easy to read the headlines to see the evils of mankind and to automatically assume we are killing the planet. It is more difficult – and rational – to look at the scientific facts and make more rational decisions. It is no wonder why most people are duped into believing mankind is inherently evil…destroying the planet…because we are nothing if not the most arrogant creatures to ever roam the face of the earth. The Earth existed before we did. Life existed before we did. Life was all-but wiped out before we existed (several times, actually). Does mankind have an influence on this planet? Yes, I believe we do – I could be wrong, but I think we do. Are we causing global warming/cooling? Are we destroying the ozone level or otherwise throwing the balance of life? Until there is unbiased scientific evidence to suggest this, I will have to say, “No.” Arguably we could say, “If there is a chance man is causing some of these negative changes, shouldn’t we err on the side of caution and mend our ways?” This is a good and reasonable question. The answer is, “So long as we can reasonably make changes that reduce the risk to the environment, we should. But we should not alter our lifestyles or otherwise sacrifice without unbiased scientific evidence to justify such an endeavor.” Question the facts and information provided you in regards to mankind’s harm to the planet, you will be amazed to learn that there is no solid scientific evidence to support the notion that man is responsible in any way kcuhC, chuck@kcuhc.com |