Thread: Thinning of the Herd?

Species and sub species come and go like long, epic tides. It's happened since long before us - it'll go on long after us.

No one denies that at all. But thats not the issue at hand.

We have already begun the world's sixth great extinction. Animal and insect species are dying off at a rapid rate and many other species are seriously threatened. This has been known about for a number of years among scientists, who pretty much all agree that we have entered a sixth Great Extinction, the largest since the dinosaurs went extinct. Many scientists and biologists think that this present extinction rate may well exceed what happened with the dinosaurs.

http://www.well.com/~davidu/extinction.html
There are more than 300 links on this page, all of them from reputable sources such as the Worldwatch, National Geographic, Scientific American, Science, etc. Even the United Nations agrees we are in a major extinction.

From this link, an article from the Washington Post, dated April 21, 1998:
(i.e., the info here has only worsened in the last 10 years since this was published)

"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.]

Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats."

You can also Google "current mass extinction" and get lots of results with many good articles on this subject.

Here is a table that summarizes which species are threatened, listed by type of species, from 1996 to 2007.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/2007..._Table%201.pdf

More tables here:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/stats

Here is another article, from June 2007:
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/blogs...xtinction.html

"While extinction is a normal part of evolution, the current extinction rate is anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than at any time over the past 60 million years. That being the case, I don't think this period of time being called the sixth great extinction is an exaggeration. Some say that the sixth great extinction will rival the third - 90-95% of all species will vanish over a very short period unless we dramatically change our ways..."

"...Aside from the loss of beauty and diversity when a singles species becomes extinct, the disappearance of one species can be the trigger for the vanishing of many more that may be dependent upon it. We are also losing species useful for treating human illness; many we will never know of their therapeutic value as they are extinct already. Who knows, the cure and vaccination for cancer or AIDS that medicine has been searching so long for may disappear from our planet.. today."

The circle of life is just that, all things are interconnected. If other animals are seriously threatened, how long until humankind starts to die off?

Originally Posted by ExoByte

No one denies that at all. But thats not the issue at hand.

OK

We have already begun the world's sixth great extinction. Animal and insect species are dying off at a rapid rate and many other species are seriously threatened. This has been known about for a number of years among scientists, who pretty much all agree that we have entered a sixth Great Extinction, the largest since the dinosaurs went extinct. Many scientists and biologists think that this present extinction rate may well exceed what happened with the dinosaurs.

But the "next great extinction" always begins the moment the last one "ends". It's unavoidable. I'm really not trying to argue, just put a little perspective into it.

It's funny how people use "the dinosaurs" as if that was one single species. The dinosaurs were a collection of species. An era of life, not one type of animal. There were probably hundreds of thousands (if not way more) species that died off when the dinosaurs kicked the proverbial bucket.

Even the United Nations agrees we are in a major extinction.

But perspective man, perspective. We can only judge by the measly little time we've been able to experience. Don't think that fossil records tell the whole story.

From this link, an article from the Washington Post, dated April 21, 1998:

(i.e., the info here has only worsened in the last 10 years since this was published)

I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and say that it's mainly our ability to detect and recognise such things that's increased as dramatically as "they" would have the populous believe. There's no doubt that many species are suffering heavily. But is there really anything convincing enough to "prove" that overall rates are any different? Or more precisely, higher than the natural trends and cycles predict? I'm not convinced. Then again, I've never been one to side with mass hysteria and scare tactics.

"The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff

Daniel and I will not agree then.

Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.

As if mankind even has a clue how many species perished back then. We aren't even aware of probably MOST of the species that exist on Earth right this very moment and we're going to play some kind of numbers game from millions of years before we even existed. Don't think so. It's not exactly the kind of info to base historical "fact" on.

Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway,

And the sky is falling. Oh wait, no it's not. That's only the sun going down. Luckily I can count on it coming right back up. It's dependable like that.

and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats."

And in 1971 the Earth was going to (not "might" but, WILL) become a frozen mass of ice in which every living being is converted into deathcicles. I wonder how that one turned out? Let's ask the same people. You know, the global warming nuts. Now we're all going to be a mass grave of cinders and charcoal in 15 years. I'm scared. Some bode hold me.

Yup, it's the same hippy, politically-correct, do-gooder, whinny crowd. Shocking? Not really. Alarmists always find themselves on the wrong side of the argument because they rely on knee jerk reactions and paper thin "evidence" to draw profound, Earth shaking scare episodes that inevitably fall flat in the end. It's the way of the world.

You can also Google "current mass extinction" and get lots of results with many good articles on this subject.

[sarcasm alert]And I can Google "Xenu" and discover where my Grandparents came from. That doesn't make it fact (I hope Tom Cruise doesn't send his goons after me, for I have blasphemed). My Great Grandpa was an intergalactic space marine! He was killed in a nuclear explosion from a bomb detonated in a volcano. His soul - or "Thetan" - was then vaporized and condensed to form a taco. A delicious, saucy taco. Kind of cool actually.

Beat that.[/sarcasm]


Look, I don't deny that species are dying off. I just don't believe that the data is as significant as the scientific community makes it out to be. There's way more to understand before things can be viewed in the proper light and before cause and effect and meaning can be derived.

I can't even say I respect your opinion. I've taken the time to post all this information, with sources I might add, and all you've done is basically say "I disagree and don't think its right" without any supporting evidence or sources of your own. All you're doing is complaining, as usual, and using arguments based entirely on your own assumptions, which have no sources or evidence themselves.

Try again when you can actually back up your own claims.

Originally Posted by ExoByte

I can't even say I respect your opinion.

Well, obviously it was only my opinion. Just like my opinion of "global cooling" and "global warming". I know the crowd, I know their tactics, I know their intentions, I know the pattern. Call it learning from the past. I won't say that I won't change opinions but, I don't foresee it at the moment.

When everybody else is crying for Bambi's Mother, I like to acknowledge that it's only a cartoon. Of course, it could turn out to be a documentary for all I know. Cameras weren't that great back then.

The biggest thing I have a hard time accepting is the guilt complex associated with the subject. We're supposed to feel bad for natural occurrences.

While extinction is entirely natural, its clear you're not even reading anything being posted. We know for a fact that species are dying off now faster than ever before. So while extinction is natural, we as humans are likely playing a much larger hand in it than we realize. Just as Global Warming is natural and entirely related to the sun, our pollutants and green house gasses aren't helping matters.

And as Mes asked, it can affect us as humans. As the last quote I posted says:

"While extinction is a normal part of evolution, the current extinction rate is anywhere from 1,000 to 10,000 times higher than at any time over the past 60 million years. That being the case, I don't think this period of time being called the sixth great extinction is an exaggeration. Some say that the sixth great extinction will rival the third - 90-95% of all species will vanish over a very short period unless we dramatically change our ways..."

"...Aside from the loss of beauty and diversity when a singles species becomes extinct, the disappearance of one species can be the trigger for the vanishing of many more that may be dependent upon it. We are also losing species useful for treating human illness; many we will never know of their therapeutic value as they are extinct already. Who knows, the cure and vaccination for cancer or AIDS that medicine has been searching so long for may disappear from our planet.. today."

So this is important to us and our own preservation, and therefore your own life, if nothing else matters to you.

Regardless of whether "it's natural," I prefer a world with moose and dolphins, thank you. It's clear we're having unconscious, unintentional effects on global ecology; it's about time we start acting with consciousness and intent to ensure we have a desirable world in the future.

Regardless of whether "it's natural," I prefer a world with moose and dolphins, thank you. It's clear we're having unconscious, unintentional effects on global ecology; it's about time we start acting with consciousness and intent to ensure we have a desirable world in the future.

Humans ARE A PART OF global ecology so OF COURSE we are "affecting" it!!

Sorry if I've come off as being insensitive about the topic. I'm trying to figure out to what degree Humans are to "blame". And I have fundamental oppositions to the notion that we single-handedly are destroying the entire planet. I don't disagree that we affect everything around us on various levels and to varying degrees though, only that we don't know the actual extent because it's a subject rife with bias and blame. And because we don't have the information nor perspective to draw such conclusions on a definitive level, despite what we think we know.

Emotional thinkers try to view Humankind as separate from nature when - in reality - we are every bit as much PART of nature as everything around us. That's the critical distinction to be considered when saying that we have over-stepped our bounds or whatever argument is used to support one's position.

I should know; I know everything

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Regardless of whether "it's natural," I prefer a world with moose and dolphins, thank you. It's clear we're having unconscious, unintentional effects on global ecology; it's about time we start acting with consciousness and intent to ensure we have a desirable world in the future.

Agreed. So long as we're not all led down a path of self-loathing and beating ourselves up for the aspects that we can't control. That said, we are causing some problems that need to be reconsidered for the good of everyone and everything on Earth.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Humans ARE A PART OF global ecology so OF COURSE we are "affecting" it!!

You go, boy

I think GH is on the right track-- So far we cannot observe any similar ecological system on a planet without human interaction.

And when we do look at our own planet we seem to forget that we are on the inside looking at it, rather than the outside looking into it.

Gh! I don't know why I feel the need to greet you every time you post these days...maybe if you would quit abandoning us I wouldn't do that.
(JK, I know you're busy.)

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Sorry if I've come off as being insensitive about the topic. I'm trying to figure out to what degree Humans are to "blame". And I have fundamental oppositions to the notion that we single-handedly are destroying the entire planet.

Who is helping us? Just the number of species alone that have become extinct from direct human action is incredible and can't be disputed. And for the rest of it, climate change, etc. it should be like insurance: even if the bad thing isn't necessarily going to happen, you should act as if it might, if you are smart.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Emotional thinkers try to view Humankind as separate from nature when - in reality - we are every bit as much PART of nature as everything around us. That's the critical distinction to be considered when saying that we have over-stepped our bounds or whatever argument is used to support one's position.

Define "nature". Hunter-gatherers are natural, what we have become is not. If people kill everything and pave over the whole world, is that acceptable because it was the natural thing to do?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Gh!

Miss Beam!

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Who is helping us? Just the number of species alone that have become extinct from direct human action is incredible and can't be disputed.

I see where you're coming from and I agree. But that's a biased view. Biased in the sense that it separates us from nature. If we were to step back and look at the system as a whole - instead of 'us and them' - then we'd see that everything we do is "part of nature" because we ourselves are merely part of nature, as degrading as the concept may appear.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

And for the rest of it, climate change, etc. it should be like insurance: even if the bad thing isn't necessarily going to happen, you should act as if it might, if you are smart.

Can't really disagree with that.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Define "nature". Hunter-gatherers are natural, what we have become is not. If people kill everything and pave over the whole world, is that acceptable because it was the natural thing to do?

I define nature as all-inclusive. Every being, plant, animal, rock, physical law, planet, star, etc... As Humans, we tend to exclude ourselves from the title "of nature" but how can we not be? I understand that the word "nature" implies everything besides ourselves. I just think that's an egotistical view the mankind has of what nature is and how we relate to it.

An external species would look at Earth and see us as being just more creatures, building structures, eating, crapping, making babies. They'd tell you that "nature" is everything we think it is + us. We're not all that different from other species here. We may be the dominating species but we're still just part of nature and that can never change.

Imagine the beavers. Imagine them! Cute, cuddly, delicious... Wait, what was I talking about? Oh right, the animal beaver. Anyhoo... What if they had the mental faculty to ponder their place in the world? What if they held a goodwill meeting and decided "What we are doing - what with all the gnawing down of trees, backing up of rivers, eating of other creatures - is "unnatural"; "We're ruining everything around us." After all, what says that they wouldn't have the same superiority complex and delusions of independence as Humans?

Now, as an outsider, peer into the world of the beaver and you'll see that they are indeed completely and inseparably part of nature.

As I always say on so many topics: it's a matter of perspective. I'm not saying mine is right in every way but, I rarely see both sides of the story presented. So to every one, I'm sorry if I come off as argumentative a lot of times. That's really not my intentions.

EDIT:

Sorry, I meant to address this question:

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

...If people kill everything and pave over the whole world, is that acceptable because it was the natural thing to do?

Alright, now we're talking about the real key. Keeping in mind the things I've already said, I'll add that I do feel it's very important to be good stewards of our world. Even though we are "part of nature" I do not think it's 'ok' to destroy everything. We do bear great responsibility and have to be wise. There's a balance in there - somewhere - between what's 'excessive' and what's deemed 'excessive' in popular wisdom.

It's like with politics, we all want what's good. We all want what's best in the end. Unless you're a hell spawn, of course. The only real disagreements spring from the philosophical differences about how to reach that end.

MB, you seem to forget that species push other species to extinction all the time. Humans are just organisms.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

It's like with politics, we all want what's good. We all want what's best in the end. Unless you're a hell spawn, of course. The only real disagreements spring from the philosophical differences about how to reach that end.

I think a lot of people don't care if it means short term gain for themselves. I really don't think everybody wants what's "good", unless good is defined as what's best for them and screw everything else.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

MB, you seem to forget that species push other species to extinction all the time. Humans are just organisms.

Other species don't destroy and poison entire ecosystems and possibly threaten most of the life on earth, including their own species. You're right that 99% of all species that have ever existed have gone extinct, but that is over time, with new ones evolving to take their place. Do we really want to just slaughter everything so nothing is left but people and a couple of the things that we like to eat?

We can say it's all part of the natural order of the universe; I guess ultimately blowing up the whole planet and killing everything on it would just be "natural", right? I just don't think it would be a good thing to do.

What's with all this "natural" stuff, anyway? Natural has a definition, which isn't usually meant the way you are using the word. If you expand it to mean everything that occurs that isn't supernatural, which means everything, and then you say it's OK because it's natural, that means everything is OK, right? Nazis, nuclear bombs, serial killers, small-pox: all natural, therefore OK!

No, they do by other means that are aftermaths of "humans activity". When a dominant species takes over, others die off.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think a lot of people don't care if it means short term gain for themselves. I really don't think everybody wants what's "good", unless good is defined as what's best for them and screw everything else.

I hate to think of that side of it but, yes. Some people really don't care about anything but themselves. But I think that in general people are good. Too bad the most powerful ones are often the more greedy and ruthless ones.

Natural or not, people suck.

I know a lot of people like to say "who cares; species die out all the time," but I would be extremely concerned about this bee thing. I've read a lot about it, and if our bees all die out, you can say goodbye to at least a third of our food supply, if not more, and hello famine.

There are scientists working on the mystery in the US as well as in several countries across Europe, so hopefully they'll find something and be able to put a stop to it before the damage becomes irreversible.

Originally Posted by Naiya

I know a lot of people like to say "who cares; species die out all the time," but I would be extremely concerned about this bee thing. I've read a lot about it, and if our bees all die out, you can say goodbye to at least a third of our food supply, if not more, and hello famine.

There are scientists working on the mystery in the US as well as in several countries across Europe, so hopefully they'll find something and be able to put a stop to it before the damage becomes irreversible.

You do realise that it's possible to pollinate plants without the assistance of bees, right?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

You do realise that it's possible to pollinate plants without the assistance of bees, right?

You do realize how insanely hard that is, right? There are people in fields with feather dusters right now. It's a painstakingly hard and long process which does not end in the same amount of crops as normal. There's a whole special on one of the science channels about it...go watch it. Or just google for information and see for yourself

If we could replace bees with simple machinery, don't you think a bunch of companies would be jumping on that bandwagon right now? Or that governments across the globe would be funding that technology instead of research on getting the bees back? Pollination isn't as simple as turning on a leaf blower at your crops and hoping it works out. You have to physically get pollen from one plant and make sure it makes contact in the right place on another.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Emotional thinkers try to view Humankind as separate from nature when - in reality - we are every bit as much PART of nature as everything around us.

Nature (n.)
1.the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

That's the definition. Humans are not a part of nature. It has nothing to do with thinking emotionally or logically, that's what the word actually means.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Agreed. So long as we're not all led down a path of self-loathing and beating ourselves up for the aspects that we can't control. That said, we are causing some problems that need to be reconsidered for the good of everyone and everything on Earth.

And what aspects do you speak of that we 'cannot control'? Of course we don't have to beat ourselves up over anything we may or may not being doing to the planet, but we can't just sit back and say "Hah I can't control the emissions of my car so pollution is ok."

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

But the "next great extinction" always begins the moment the last one "ends".

No, it doesn't. One great storm doesn't begin once another great storm ends, it begins when it's severity is such that it overshadows that of the many storms that came before it. Likewise, a great extinction occurs when the number of species dying off is so numerous that it overshadows the number of species that died before over X number of years, back until the previous great extinction ended. The great extinction ends when this high number of species death declines to a more stable rate. That stable rate can carry on for thousands or millions of years, until some next great extinction occurs.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

It's funny how people use "the dinosaurs" as if that was one single species. The dinosaurs were a collection of species. An era of life, not one type of animal. There were probably hundreds of thousands (if not way more) species that died off when the dinosaurs kicked the proverbial bucket.

I don't think anyone used the dinosaurs as reference to a single species. They used it for the reason you stated, because they are a collection of species. Being that this collection of species died off, it makes for an excellent general word in this scenario, as opposed to listing off every single species that died off. Sounds understandable, right? If years from now intelligent birds were refferencing the extinction of the mammals (ie "when the mammals died off."), it would make more sense than to say "When the humans, dogs, goats, moose, elephants, gazelle, antelope, buffalo.................................... died off". They would not be using the word 'mammals' as if it implied a single species, the same way we are not using it to imply a single species, but instead many.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb here and say that it's mainly our ability to detect and recognise such things that's increased as dramatically as "they" would have the populous believe. There's no doubt that many species are suffering heavily. But is there really anything convincing enough to "prove" that overall rates are any different? Or more precisely, higher than the natural trends and cycles predict? I'm not convinced. Then again, I've never been one to side with mass hysteria and scare tactics.

The smart thing to do would be to wait until we have no more blue in our skies, so that they've become entirely brown in color, right?. "Mass hysteria" and being "environmentally cautious" are two different things.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And the sky is falling. Oh wait, no it's not. That's only the sun going down. Luckily I can count on it coming right back up. It's dependable like that.

We, as thinking creatures, can destroy the dependability of the environment. Do you think the next day would be as 'dependably' similar to today if we detonated the 2000+ nuclear weapons in existence on the planet? Hah, certainly not.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And in 1971 the Earth was going to (not "might" but, WILL) become a frozen mass of ice in which every living being is converted into deathcicles. I wonder how that one turned out? Let's ask the same people. You know, the global warming nuts. Now we're all going to be a mass grave of cinders and charcoal in 15 years. I'm scared. Some bode hold me.

I believe ExoByte asked for refferences. Frozen earth?
As for global warming, scientific data is pointing to a pattern of rising tempuratures all over the planet. Whether we are or are not the cause of this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there IS a global weather trend occuring. Burned to cinders? I lol'd.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Yup, it's the same hippy, politically-correct, do-gooder, whinny crowd. Shocking? Not really. Alarmists always find themselves on the wrong side of the argument because they rely on knee jerk reactions and paper thin "evidence" to draw profound, Earth shaking scare episodes that inevitably fall flat in the end. It's the way of the world.

You fall into the same trap when your knee-jerk response is to deny that any of this COULD even be happening. There's nothing wrong with wanting to make the planet that's sustaining life a better place to live in. Whining hippie do-gooders? For people that show some sort of concern for environmental issues, you sure do give them negative labels.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

[sarcasm alert]And I can Google "Xenu" and discover where my Grandparents came from. That doesn't make it fact (I hope Tom Cruise doesn't send his goons after me, for I have blasphemed).

Is it not obvious that he wanted you to google reliable sources? Do you honestly believe Xenu fanboy pages and National Geographic's site fall into the same category?...

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Look, I don't deny that species are dying off. I just don't believe that the data is as significant as the scientific community makes it out to be. There's way more to understand before things can be viewed in the proper light and before cause and effect and meaning can be derived.

Are you a scientist? Do you think that legitimate scientists jump the gun and jump to rash conclusions? Quite to the contrary, they're pretty diligent when it comes to their work. Did you mean the media? If that were the case, I hadn't seen a link of ExoByte's that came from any news organization...

DISCLAIMER: None of my responses were meant to be offensive or taken offensively in any way. I do not promote hostility. The hour is late, and the care to implement the vast amount of sugar and compassion that is so often within my posts has not been taken. If for any reason My messages are taken the wrong way, I will not be held liable. Any violent responses made to my posts are the responsibility of the responder. Restrictions aply, results may vary.

In order for this to be convincing, you'll have to supply me with population data for the last 500 years or so. Thats really the only way to get an accurate model of population rise and fall. This is why the global warming scare lost steam so quickly; they just didn't have the data to back the outrageous claims they were trying to make.

Originally Posted by Naiya

You do realize how insanely hard that is, right? There are people in fields with feather dusters right now. It's a painstakingly hard and long process which does not end in the same amount of crops as normal. There's a whole special on one of the science channels about it...go watch it. Or just google for information and see for yourself

If we could replace bees with simple machinery, don't you think a bunch of companies would be jumping on that bandwagon right now? Or that governments across the globe would be funding that technology instead of research on getting the bees back? Pollination isn't as simple as turning on a leaf blower at your crops and hoping it works out. You have to physically get pollen from one plant and make sure it makes contact in the right place on another.

... This response completely disregards the thousands of other species of birds and insects that also pollinate our plants.

I'm going to make brief work of your annoying post:

Originally Posted by invader_tech

Nature (n.)
1.the material world, esp. as surrounding humankind and existing independently of human activities.

That's the definition. Humans are not a part of nature. It has nothing to do with thinking emotionally or logically, that's what the word actually means.

Oh really? Read on:

Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical universe, material world or material universe. "Nature" refers to the phenomena of the physical world, and also to life in general. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

Nature is innate behavior (behavior not learned or influenced by the environment), character or essence, especially of a human.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature (innate)

The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing.
www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm

"a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe; "the laws of nature"; "nature has seen to it that men are stronger than women"

"the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc.; "they tried to preserve nature as they found it"

...

Nothing there about excluding Humans. Even this one that refers "especially to" non-Human effected territory doesn't exclude Humans:

The material world and its beauties, especially those parts remaining in a primitive, untouched state, unchanged by humans.
www.alankritha.com/glossary.htm


In fact, nothing under "define:nature" says anything about "independant of Humans". Even more amusing is that even YOUR definition DOES NOT EXCLUDE HUMANS. It says 'especially independant of...' You fail.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...e%3anature

So your taking the exception definition doesn't exactly prove that I don't understand the meaning of the word "nature". It actually proves that YOU DO NOT fully understand the meaning of "nature", which I could have guessed by the fact that you've argued against it

And what aspects do you speak of that we 'cannot control'?

While I don't like your tone young man, I'll answer by saying "things we can't control." What do you think I mean? Nature, the global temperature, the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis (which is HUGELY responsibly for the ebb and flow of Earth's temperature fluctuations. The changes in relative species levels. NATURAL fluctuations, mind you. It's been going on for thousands/millions of years.

I shouldn't have to remind people that we've only been here a short time. The trends we see are only a tiny jiggle in the graph of the Earth's actual time line.

Of course we don't have to beat ourselves up over anything we may or may not being doing to the planet,

Yet, we do. For shame - for shame. Now, I don't. But the ones who spread all this Human loathing, crybaby, the-sky-is-falling BS do.

but we can't just sit back and say "Hah I can't control the emissions of my car so pollution is ok."

That seeds a whole new topic. Relevant to this topic, however, I'll just say that I agree. But don't think that we have any conclusive proof that we have caused ANY SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES AT ALL. For every scientist taking surveys for special interest deep pockets, there is one that speaks out and acknowledges that the evidence just doesn't hold water.

There has been an average global temp increase of 0.7 degrees C over the past 100 years! 100 frickin' hundred. How the hell can we say that the Earth doesn't do that on it's own? In fact, how can we - with all of the evidence of periodic ice ages - say so ignorantly that the Earth doesn't go through heating and cooling trends that are ABSOLUTELY, COMPLETELY, AND UNDENIABLY OF ZERO HUMAN CONSEQUENCE?

That what annoys me so deeply about people that want to argue the case you are. You look only at what some present trend indicates and conveniently ignore long term cycles that have happened since the dawn of time and will continue way after we've died off.

No, it doesn't. One great storm doesn't begin once another great storm ends,

Perspective man, perspective. The clock begins the moment the last one ends. Yes, the countdown for the next "great one" began the instant the last one took place. That's what periodic means; it happens every so often.

I don't think anyone used the dinosaurs as reference to a single species.

I need to re-read what he said that I was responding to. I may have misunderstood. I understood his statement to be that the next extinction will kill way more species than the dinosaurs. Even worded that way... hmm.

Yeah, on that one: my bad.

The smart thing to do would be to wait until we have no more blue in our skies, so that they've become entirely brown in color, right?. "Mass hysteria" and being "environmentally cautious" are two different things.

Of course they are not the same thing. The problem is that the extremists on the issue are making it out to be some dire impending doom looming inches above our heads. And that's simply scare tactical BS, intended to foster hysteria about the issue.

See, another thing you folks are failing to recognise is just how much politics and power plays are intertwined with the whole "Global warming" bandwagon. "An Inconvenient Truth" anyone. Don't talk to me about hysteria being a misnomer until you consider the real motivation behind the movement. You may personally feel it's about "caring" but it's not. It may be to many of the believers but the movement is based on an entirely different foundation.

We, as thinking creatures, can destroy the dependability of the environment. Do you think the next day would be as 'dependably' similar to today if we detonated the 2000+ nuclear weapons in existence on the planet? Hah, certainly not.

Give me a break. You really think you're going to trap me with that crap?

I believe ExoByte asked for refferences. Frozen earth?
As for global warming, scientific data is pointing to a pattern of rising tempuratures all over the planet. Whether we are or are not the cause of this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there IS a global weather trend occuring. Burned to cinders? I lol'd.

Of course you laughed, you don't understand what the hell you're talking about. You're baffled into a stuper.

In the early 1970's, there was a huge "hippie-esque" movement - including protests, riots, marches, political pandering, petitions, you name it - about "Global cooling". Think I'm making that sh!t up? You'd better think again there.

The most humorous thing is that those people knee-jerk alarmists were JUST AS CONVINCED as today's global warming crowd. In fact, some of the very same people where part of both crowds!!! Think I'm talking bull? Better think again. I don't need to prove recent history to you. Look it up yourself.

And have you seen and herd how people like Al Gore tried to grossly exaggerate the warming trend? His proof has been disputed by a lot of scientists. Yet, he'll have you believe that the Earth will be too hot to sustain life in 30 years. 30 FRICKIN' YEARS! It's a bunch of BS based on circumstantial evidence and milked for votes and funding.

The fact is that what we know about our short-term trends doesn't mean squat because we lack proper perspective for reference.

You fall into the same trap when your knee-jerk response is to deny that any of this COULD even be happening.

First of all, my point of view is far from knee-jerk. Maybe you have formulated your opinion on an hour of thought but I've been over this crap for many years now. I've heard both sides of the story for many years now. Don't talk to me about knee-jerk reactions.

And when did I deny that it could be happening? My mother could be on "America's Most Wanted" right now. I don't deny that it's possible. But until there's real evidence that she is, the reasonable conclusion is that she is not.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to make the planet that's sustaining life a better place to live in. Whining hippie do-gooders? For people that show some sort of concern for environmental issues, you sure do give them negative labels.

I give harsh labels to misguided do-gooders because, well, that's what they are. Special interest groups nearly always do more harm than good.

Is it not obvious that he wanted you to google reliable sources? Do you honestly believe Xenu fanboy pages and National Geographic's site fall into the same category?...

I was comparing apples to oranges to illustrate the absurdity.

Are you a scientist? Do you think that legitimate scientists jump the gun and jump to rash conclusions? Quite to the contrary, they're pretty diligent when it comes to their work. Did you mean the media? If that were the case, I hadn't seen a link of ExoByte's that came from any news organization...

Say what makes you feel good. But I've heard plenty of real scientists that DO NOT go along with the BS. Remember who controls the mainstream media and Hollywood: predominantly liberals. It's either go along with the talking points or get your ass fired. You don't think a lot of people who can "prove" my side are being squelched? Better think again there buddy. You're wrong.

DISCLAIMER: None of my responses were meant to be offensive or taken offensively in any way. I do not promote hostility. The hour is late, and the care to implement the vast amount of sugar and compassion that is so often within my posts has not been taken. If for any reason My messages are taken the wrong way, I will not be held liable. Any violent responses made to my posts are the responsibility of the responder. Restrictions aply, results may vary.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

In order for this to be convincing, you'll have to supply me with population data for the last 500 years or so. Thats really the only way to get an accurate model of population rise and fall. This is why the global warming scare lost steam so quickly; they just didn't have the data to back the outrageous claims they were trying to make.

EXACTLY. It's a bunch of BS, plain and simple.

... This response completely disregards the thousands of other species of birds and insects that also pollinate our plants.

Thank you. You get a cookie!

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I'm going to make brief work of your annoying post:

That hardly sounded polite. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Nature is innate behavior (behavior not learned or influenced by the environment), character or essence, especially of a human.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature (innate)

That's a different kind of nature. It's spelled the same, has a different meaning... -_- We were not discussing anything in regards to behavior.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing.
www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm

Nope, wrong kind of nature.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

"a causal agent creating and controlling things in the universe;

Are we talking about God now? Regardless, that has nothing to do with the nature we're talking about.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

"nature has seen to it that men are stronger than women"

That does not make men or women a part of nature. A human making machines stronger, for example, does not make humanity a part of machinery.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

"the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes etc.; "they tried to preserve nature as they found it"

Using the word in it's own deffinition is always looked down upon. It's like saying "What's the deffinition for narcissism? Um, someone who is narcissistic and... etc". BAD.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Nothing there about excluding Humans. Even this one that refers "especially to" non-Human effected territory doesn't exclude Humans:

Not much about including us either.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The material world and its beauties, especially those parts remaining in a primitive, untouched state, unchanged by humans.
www.alankritha.com/glossary.htm

Um... Exactly.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

In fact, nothing under "define:nature" says anything about "independant of Humans". Even more amusing is that even YOUR definition DOES NOT EXCLUDE HUMANS. It says 'especially independant of...'

Especially, meaning that the less contact we have with it, the more 'natural' it is. The more interaction humans have, the less natural. It means that there are levels to the concept of 'natural' and how natural something can be.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

You fail.

I'm not amused.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

So your taking the exception definition doesn't exactly prove that I don't understand the meaning of the word "nature". It actually proves that YOU DO NOT fully understand the meaning of "nature", which I could have guessed by the fact that you've argued against it

For the sake of making corrections. K.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

While I don't like your tone young man, I'll answer by saying "things we can't control." What do you think I mean? Nature, the global temperature, the tilt and wobble of the Earth's axis (which is HUGELY responsibly for the ebb and flow of Earth's temperature fluctuations. The changes in relative species levels. NATURAL fluctuations, mind you. It's been going on for thousands/millions of years.

Look, i'll even repeat myself: "We, as thinking creatures, can destroy the dependability of the environment. Do you think the next day would be as 'dependably' similar to today if we detonated the 2000+ nuclear weapons in existence on the planet? Hah, certainly not." What part of that doesn't make sense to you? I wouldn't doubt that only 20 nuclear warheads placed in strategic locations around the globe could ruin the ecosystem, let alone 2,000 plunging us into a nuclear winter and extinction alone. Can't change nature? Sorry, we can.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I shouldn't have to remind people that we've only been here a short time. The trends we see are only a tiny jiggle in the graph of the Earth's actual time line.

No one is denying it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Yet, we do. For shame - for shame. Now, I don't. But the ones who spread all this Human loathing, crybaby, the-sky-is-falling BS do.

Letting people know that bees are dying out is something to be shameful about then? Last time I checked, things that affected the survival of our species were pretty important to stay tuned into. The only people 'loathing' are those who don't know any better. Pointing the finger at others doesn't fix anything. Figure we can agree on that, no?

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

That seeds a whole new topic. Relevant to this topic, however, I'll just say that I agree. But don't think that we have any conclusive proof that we have caused ANY SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES AT ALL.

No, I wasn't referring to global climate change, but instead to the air quality. It doesn't take scientific instruments to tell the air is bad when you live in the middle of LA, and that alone directly affects our health.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Perspective man, perspective. The clock begins the moment the last one ends. Yes, the countdown for the next "great one" began the instant the last one took place. That's what periodic means; it happens every so often.

Then the way we see it different. Perspective man.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I need to re-read what he said that I was responding to. I may have misunderstood. I understood his statement to be that the next extinction will kill way more species than the dinosaurs. Even worded that way... hmm.

Yeah, on that one: my bad.

All good. It happens.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Of course they are not the same thing. The problem is that the extremists on the issue are making it out to be some dire impending doom looming inches above our heads. And that's simply scare tactical BS, intended to foster hysteria about the issue.

See, another thing you folks are failing to recognise is just how much politics and power plays are intertwined with the whole "Global warming" bandwagon. "An Inconvenient Truth" anyone. Don't talk to me about hysteria being a misnomer until you consider the real motivation behind the movement. You may personally feel it's about "caring" but it's not. It may be to many of the believers but the movement is based on an entirely different foundation.

/agree

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Give me a break. You really think you're going to trap me with that crap?

If you can't deny it, it looks like I did.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Of course you laughed, you don't understand what the hell you're talking about. You're baffled into a stuper.

If I couldn't understand what I was talking about, I wouldn't have said it. Scare tactics about burning to cinders isn't laughable to you? I'd have thought you of all people would find it that rediculous.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

In the early 1970's, there was a huge "hippie-esque" movement - including protests, riots, marches, political pandering, petitions, you name it - about "Global cooling". Think I'm making that sh!t up? You'd better think again there.

No, just wanted you to source. I'm not the first to ask.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

And have you seen and herd how people like Al Gore tried to grossly exaggerate the warming trend? His proof has been disputed by a lot of scientists. Yet, he'll have you believe that the Earth will be too hot to sustain life in 30 years. 30 FRICKIN' YEARS! It's a bunch of BS based on circumstantial evidence and milked for votes and funding.

Right, I don't deny what you're saying. But I didn't think the topic was all about global warming, right? Just about who believes nonsense. Naturally, something like a 30 year time period to make the earth too hot to live on sounds rediculous, but to make a species run into extinction isn't nearly as difficult a thing to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

The fact is that what we know about our short-term trends doesn't mean squat because we lack proper perspective for reference.

Unless we gather enough evidence to conclude that the events are man made. Hunting a particular animal into extinction is a good example. The development of a chemical or viral strain that kills another species off is another good example. Global warming is not a good example, because there are too many variables.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

I give harsh labels to misguided do-gooders because, well, that's what they are. Special interest groups nearly always do more harm than good.

I'd call them extremists, but that's just me. When you called them do-gooders, I was under the impression that you were referring to everyone who was environmentally conscious, including those who were not extremists.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Say what makes you feel good. But I've heard plenty of real scientists that DO NOT go along with the BS. Remember who controls the mainstream media and Hollywood: Zionists (I fixed it for you). It's either go along with the talking points or get your ass fired. You don't think a lot of people who can "prove" my side are being squelched? Better think again there buddy. You're wrong.

If I agree with you on this one too, and you say I'm wrong, it would make you wrong too. Hahahaha, man, i'm not even claiming to be a part of one side or the other. You were trying to make a point, so I challenged you on it. Just because I challenged you doesn't mean I don't see where you're comming from, or even disagree with you. In order for you to know I was wrong, you'd have to know that I had taken a side.

[Edit] WOW that's a lot of quotes =X